Why are judges so wary of regulatory takings?

Private Property in the 21st Century: The Future of an American Ideal

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 50-74

  Fischel, William A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84896217060     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781781008461.00012     Document Type: Chapter

References (41)

1. Blume, L.E., Rubinfeld, D.L. and Shapiro, P. (1984). The taking of land: When should compensation be paid?. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99, 71-92.
2. Bosselman, F.P., Callies, D. and Banta, J. (1973). The Taking Issue: An analysis of the constitutional limits of land use control. Washington, DC: President’s Council on Environmental Quality.
3. Brauneis, R. (1996). ‘The foundation of our regulatory takings jurisprudence’: The meaning and myth of Justice Holmes’s opinion in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon. Yale Law Journal, 106, 613-702.
4. Brauneis, R. (1999). The first constitutional tort: The remedial revolution in nineteenth-century state just compensation law. Vanderbilt Law Review, 52, 57-141.
5. Burrows, P. (1991). Compensation for compulsory acquisition. Land Economics, 67, 49-63.
6. Carlson, A.E. and Pollak, D. (2001). Takings on the ground: How the Supreme Court’s takings jurisprudence affects local land use decisions. University of California at Davis Law Review, 35, 103-57.
7. Deutsch, S. and Butler, J. (1987). Recent limits on municipal antitrust liability. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, 39(1), 3-7.
8. Downs, A. (1973). Opening Up the Suburbs: An urban strategy for America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9. Eagle, S.J. (1998). The 1997 regulatory takings quartet: Retreating from the ‘rule of law.'. New York Law School Law Review, 42, 345-406.
10. Ellickson, R.C. (1977). Suburban growth controls: An economic and legal analysis. Yale Law Journal, 86, 385-511.
11. Ely Jr, J.W. (1992). The Guardian of Every Other Right: A constitutional history of property rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Ely, J.H. (1980). Democracy and Distrust: A theory of judicial review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Epstein, R.A. (1985). Takings: Private property and the power of eminent domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Fennell, L.A. (2000). Hard bargains and real steals: Land use exactions revisited. Iowa Law Review, 86, 1-85.
15. Fischel, W.A. (1985). The Economics of Zoning Laws: A property rights approach to American land use controls. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16. Fischel, W.A. (1995). Regulatory Takings: Law, economics, and politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Fischel, W.A. (2001). An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects. Dartmouth College Economics Department Working paper 02-03 (December).
18. Fischel, W.A. (2001). The Homevoter Hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Freund, E. (1904). The Police Power: Public policy and constitutional rights. Chicago: Callahan.
20. Goldberg, J.C.P. (2002). Unloved: Tort in the modern legal academy. Vanderbilt Law Review, 55, 1501-19.
21. Hagman, D. and Miscynski, D. (1978). Windfalls for Wipeouts. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials.
22. Jacobs, H.M. (1999). State Property Rights Laws: The impacts of those laws on my land. Policy Focus Report. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
23. Kanner, G. (1980). Inverse condemnation remedies in an era of uncertainty. In Institute on Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain. New York: Matthew Bender and Company, pp. 177-212.
24. Kanner, G. (1997). Tennis anyone? How California judges made land ransom and art censorship legal. Real Estate Law Journal, 25, 214-43.
25. Kanner, G. (2002). Bureaucratic bench doesn’t intrigue private practitioners. Los Angeles Daily Journal, April 3, p. 3.
26. Kinkade, B.S. (1992). Municipal antitrust immunity after. City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising. Washington Law Review, 67, 479-500.
27. Kirp, D.L., Dwyer, J.P. and Rosenthal, L. (1995). Our Town: Race, housing, and the soul of suburbia. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
28. Kline, J. and Wichelns, D. (1994). Using referendum data to characterize public support for purchasing development rights to farmland. Land Economics, 70, 223-33.
29. Kobach, K.W. (1996). The origins of regulatory takings: Setting the record straight. Utah Law Review, 1996,1211-92.
30. Lees, M.A. (1994). Preserving property-values - preserving proper homes - preserving privilege - the pre-Euclid debate over zoning for exclusively private residential areas, 1916-1926. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 56, 367-439.
31. Levmore, S. (1990). Just compensation and just politics. Connecticut Law Review, 22, 285-322.
32. Liebeler, W.J. and Alchian, A. (1994). Constitutional baselines by virtual contract: A general theory and its application to regulatory takings. Supreme Court Economic Review, 3, 153-88.
33. Mosk, S. (1988). The emerging agenda in state constitutional rights law. The Annals, 496, 54-64.
34. National Municipal Review. (1927). Editorial comment. National Municipal Review, 16, 353.
35. Niskanen, W.A., Jr. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine.
36. Riva, E. (1984). Regulatory takings in American law and ‘material expropriation’ in Swiss law: A comparison of the applicable standards. The Urban Lawyer, 16, 425-58.
37. Rose, C.M. (1983). Planning and dealing: Piecemeal land controls as a problem of local legitimacy. California Law Review, 71, 837-912.
38. Ross, W.G. (1994). A Muted Fury: Populists, Progressives and labor unions confront the courts, 1890-1937. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39. Sax, J. (1964). Takings and the police power. Yale Law Journal, 74, 36-76.
40. Sidak, J.G. and Spulber, D.F. (1996). Deregulatory takings and breach of the regulatory contract. New York University Law Review, 71, 851-999.
41. Treanor, W.M. (1985). The origins and original significance of the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment. Yale Law Journal, 94, 694-716.