Case Briefs- Civil and Constitutional Law Part 2

Synopsis of rule of law the first and fourteenth

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ession, limit based on time, place, manner) Brief Fact Summary. Students wanted to distribute literature at a large shopping center, but the owners wanted to deny them access to the property. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A state law which requires owners of large shopping enters to allow members of the public to enter their property to distribute petitions does not constitute a taking of property, even though the law limits the property owner’s right to exclude others from its property. Issue. When a large shopping center is required to allow free expression and petition on its property, will that amount to a taking? Held. No. The requirement that appellants permit the students to exercise their protected rights of free expression and to petition on shopping center property clearly does not amount to an unconstitutional infringement of appellants’ property rights under the taking clause. It will not unreasonably impair the value or use of their property as a shopping center. The shopping center may restrict expressive activity by adopting time, place, and manner regulations that will minimize any interference with its commercial functions. Appellants have failed to show that the right to exclude others is so essential to the use or economic value of their property that the state- authorized limitation of it amounted to a taking. Discussion. The property in this case is open to the public, very large, and the physical invasion is only temporary and confined to a small area. The interest of the owners of the shopping center is small compared to the right of expression. Cohen v. California (Fre...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online