Con Law Midterm 1 notes

Con Law Midterm 1 notes - In Chicago Burlington and Quincy...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
In Chicago Burlington and Quincy Railroad company v. Chicago , the justices held that the takings clause of the US constitution ws binding not only upon the federal government but also upon state and local governments. It affirmed the governments power of eminent domain but required the payment of adequate compensation whenever that power was exercised. With this, the taking clause became the first provision of the bll of rights to be made binding on the states. So the government can take private property to carry out legitimate projects The biggest issues is what constitutes just compensation. The government tries to buy the necessary lands from owners, if negotiations fail, the government may declare the power of eminent domain and take the property, giving the owners what it thinks is a fair price. Sometimes people say that fair market value is inadequate and feel ripped off. Owners can challenge the amount offered. What constitute a taking and what constitutes a public use? A taking is necessary if a voluntary sale is not negotiated. Example: To complete a water control project, the government will need to dam certain streams and cause privately owned land to become permanently flooded. In these situations, the land is taken by the government and is used for public use. Taking can also occur if the government engages I some activity that destroys the use of private property without physically seizing it. United States V. Causby 1946 Federal government built a military airfield within 2,300 feet of a North Carolina Chicken farm. The planes flew 67 feet above the farmhouse, the noise and commotion caused disruption in the farm. The chickens became less productive and died when they flew into the walls of their coops out of fear and panic. The property became unsuitable for raising chickens. The Supreme court held that the government had “taken” this property.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
The path of the planes was so low and close to the farm and residence as to deprive the owners of the use and enjoyment of their land. There was a diminution of the property’s value that was directly and immediately attributable to the government’s actions. Under such circumstances a taking has occurred and the landowners deserve compensation. This brings up the question of extent to definition of what constitutes a taking Does regulation constitute a taking? Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said it depends on the extent of regulation. The general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. Generally government regulation that only incidentally infringes on the owners use of
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/28/2010 for the course PS 179 taught by Professor Smith during the Summer '09 term at UC Irvine.

Page1 / 6

Con Law Midterm 1 notes - In Chicago Burlington and Quincy...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online