SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Services 6 Mead Data Central, ina �- I N 9 PAGE a i 4991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30:233, *15 Much of the law of eminent domain both statutory and case - developed for the I C purpose of proyidinq the procedural 1*16.1 structure for government taKings, the main issuelin the cases was what compensation was _dust. See J. Sackman Nichols' The Law of Eminent Domain § 8 (4991 ) ; see generally L. Orgel, Viluatiart U dder the Law 3f Eminent Domain (2d ed. 1953) '. AS government activities expanded, situations arose in whichgoverm ent 4tionresulted in an invasion of an owner's private property, but the government had ;not undertaken the procedural steps called far- by statutelto acquire the affected Rropertyinterests. for example, the government's � raadbuildinQ Activity on A's land, the taking of which was authorized. an paid fear by the. g0virnmentt, might cause permanent flooding on the nearby land of 6. The sprit ay b, to require the-:,go grnment to pay xlust coMpensatiOn ifat the taking of S's property as wel3, acqu ,red the name of inverse condemnation.- I Since the .SUit. :was i&W Upon.. the constitutional provision proteptinq '. property r.ig4ts, and the provision was considered td be self�exeeutinq with respect to co�pensatiort, "it escapetl the problems of sovereign immuhity. see Jag bS i. United States, Z90 U.S. 13( 1933) ; 3 J. SatrkMan, supra, at 96 ;8.0112. 3 8..0114.3 Cal. "n5 Whether C*'t7l by planned acquisition throu�#h the exercise ' ofi eminent tlorntiirt, or a payment: after the fact through inverse ct3rtdemnatian, , there -was routinely present in these cases the fast t7f physical entryupon And ' o�oi,patian. of private property by the government. _o -Footnotes- n5 ono n5 Actord 'Freseault v. 1 C C. , 494 J.S. 1 , 11 t15�0 0 the. f ifth Amenf+draten:u de igned oto, secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper 4 ibterference a duhtihq to a taking. F" (quotinq first English; 6an4elical ; a' Lutheran Chut+ch, emphasis in original) . "All that is required is the existence of as ' reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaininq.. cotxpen at n' at the time of t'he taking"; _ - - - - -end Fgotno;tes- - _ - - - - - - Occas'ionally- art issue arose, as to whether the government's activity was so SA rt llved as to be more like" the tort of trespass than a taking of property. The distinction between the government vehicle parked one day on O's land while the driver eats lunch, :on the "one hand, and the entry on Ols' land by the i government for the purpose of establishing 1*183 a long term storage lot for vehicles and equipment, on the other, is clear enough The fact that sovereign i tmu nity might insulate the government from liability in the tort but not, in the takinq makes frit interestinq�l.ine- drawing in the close cases, and provide employment (frit lawyers. dee i "P. NiChals, s;upra., at 9 113. l Traditional takings doctrine, based as it is on the indicia of physicai ! occupation of land, does not f,it easily into the issues that arose with the emergence of the requlatory state. In an early case Justice Hopes declared this basic proposition; "the general rule at least is, that while property maybe qulated to a certain extent,!? if regulation goes too far it will be' recognized as a taking." Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922) . A few years later the Supreme Court was confronted with what had emerged as the government's most pervasive mechanism for requlatinq land use: zoning! While upholding zoning as a constitutionally permissib a activity in general, (tie L t