The question at bottom is upon whom the loss of the changes desired should fall

The question at bottom is upon whom the loss of the

This preview shows page 37 - 39 out of 50 pages.

“[T]he question at bottom is upon whom the loss of the changes desired should fall.” 144 The Supreme Court has developed three analytical categories, as summarized in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. : Our precedents stake out two categories of regulatory action that generally will be deemed per se takings for Fifth Amendment purposes. First, where government requires an owner to suffer a permanent physical invasion of her 142 140 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2004). 143 Id. at 669 (“The two guarantees, though comparable, are worded differently. The Texas Constitution provides that ‘[n]o person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made . . . .’ The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states: ‘nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.’ . . . [I]t could be argued that the differences in the wording of the two provisions are significant, [but absent such an argument] we . . . look to federal jurisprudence for guidance, as we have in the past . . . .” (footnotes omitted)). 144 Id . at 670 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original) (quoting Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon , 260 U.S. 393, 413, 416 (1922)). 37
Image of page 37