§Why CasetextPricing

PROPERTY RESERVE v. S.C. (DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES)

Real Party in Interest, Department of Water Resources, Reply Brief on the Merits

50 Cited authorities

  1. Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A.

    544 U.S. 528 (2005)   Cited 1,151 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a substantive due process inquiry has "no proper place" in Takings doctrine, while distinguishing Nollan and Dolan as a special application of unconstitutional conditions doctrine for Takings

  2. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

    505 U.S. 1003 (1992)   Cited 1,837 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Williamson County's "final decision" prong is prudential

  3. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City

    438 U.S. 104 (1978)   Cited 2,576 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding prohibition on construction of fifty-five-story office tower over New York's Grand Central Terminal is not a regulatory taking

  4. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

    535 U.S. 302 (2002)   Cited 737 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding it “inappropriate to treat cases involving physical takings as controlling precedents for the evaluation of a claim that there has been a ‘regulatory taking,’ and vice versa”

  5. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

    458 U.S. 419 (1982)   Cited 1,112 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a permanent physical occupation constitutes a per se taking

  6. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

    447 U.S. 74 (1980)   Cited 725 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "views expressed by members of the public" in a privately owned shopping mall "will not likely be identified with those of the owner"

  7. Kaiser Aetna v. United States

    444 U.S. 164 (1979)   Cited 633 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the `right to exclude,' so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right, falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation"

  8. Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States

    568 U.S. 23 (2012)   Cited 203 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that temporary flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers’ operation of a dam could potentially be compensable through the Takings Clause

  9. Andrus v. Allard

    444 U.S. 51 (1979)   Cited 420 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government’s restriction on an individual’s ability to dispose of his or her private property did not amount to a taking because the individual retained other rights associated with his or her property

  10. U.S. v. General Motors Corp.

    323 U.S. 373 (1945)   Cited 603 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a tenant was entitled to compensation for being required to give up tenancy of property even beyond the fair market rental value because "[t]he right to occupy, for a day, a month, a year, or a series of years, in and of itself and without reference to the actual use, needs, or collateral arrangements of the occupier, has a value."

  11. Section 19

    Cal. Const. art. I § 19   Cited 617 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Taking property without just compensation