Laserfiche WebLink
Services of Mead Data Central, Ina <br /> PAGE 15 <br /> 1991 UIS. App. LEXIS 30233, *34 <br /> which was finals <br /> Ag ly laid to rest in First Lutheran Church, was that A <br /> regulatory taking., unlike a physical taking, is by its nature temporary.' This <br /> is k1*353 because the qaverrithent, upon being told the regulation was overly <br /> intrusive and thereforli j takifig (by whatever test) , could rescind or amend the <br /> re,qu lation. <br /> -- - - - - - - - - - Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <br /> 912 See, e.g.., First Lutheran Church., 482 U.S. 304 passim (1987) . See Also <br /> Nate, Just Compensation or Just Damages., The Measure of Damages for Temporary <br /> Regulatory Takings in!-'Wheeler Y. City of Pleasant Grove,, 74 Iowa L. Rev. 1243 <br /> (1989) <br /> End Footnotes- - - - - - - - <br /> -'It is equally true" however:,' that the government when it has taken property <br /> by physical occupation could s.. <br /> _Lrbsequently decide to return the property to its <br /> owner., or otherwise release itis interest� in the 'property. Yet no one would argue <br /> that that would somehow absolve, the government of its liability for a taking <br /> during the time the property was denied to the property owner. All takings are <br /> )temporary, , in the sense thafithe government can always change its mind At a <br /> liter time, and this is true whether the property interest taken is a possessory <br /> estate for years or adfee simple acquired 1*363through condemnationt or an <br /> easement of use by virtue of ireplation. The long drawn out battle of ; <br /> - <br /> Adins/San Dieqo Gas/First Lutheran Church was riot a fight over principle, but a <br /> 1i <br /> dispute over the illogical uselof a word. <br /> H <br /> if the term 'temporary' has any real world reference in takings <br /> jurisprudence, it logically refers to those governmental activities which <br /> irivalve an occupancy that is transient. and relatively inconsequential, and thus <br /> properly can be viewed as no dore than. a common last trespass quare clausum <br /> fteqit. Our truckdriver parking .,on, someone's vacant land to eat lunch is an <br /> example. <br /> `We do not by that example mean. to:.sugqest. that that defines the boundaries Of <br /> the case. We need not'Idecide here what physicaloccupancy, of what kind for <br /> what duration, constitutes a Loretto taking. It is enough to say that, on. the <br /> facts before the Claims Court (!on the motion for summary judgment, we conclude <br /> that the occupancy by. the Government was: comfortably within the degree necessary <br /> to make out a taking. 14hen the governmental intrusion is as substantial a' <br /> t establishes that <br /> physical occupancy ofd private Loretto <br /> as this is <br /> there is a taking. <br /> like token, E*373 the concept of permanent. physical occupation -does <br /> not require that in every instance the Occupation be exclusive, or continuous <br /> acrd uninterrupted. Thi ev* idendebefore the court was :that Government vehicles <br /> -and equipment entered upon pl"iritiffs, land from time to time, without <br /> _P#rmission, for purposes of installing and servicing the various wells. They <br /> remained on the land far whativOr durition was necessary to conduct their <br /> activities, and then left, only to return again when the Government desired. <br /> �),In Kaiser Aetna V.11 United states, 444 U.S. 144 (1979)Xthe property owners <br /> had" formed a marina bar dredging a shallow lagoon aft .,a. connecting outlet ,,into <br /> 'OLE S 4,NEXISO <br /> NlE IS 0XI <br />