takings clause in New Jersey

1992Hence, the only “loss” mandated by the Act was the potential reduction in profits resulting from Twin City’s compliance with the residual market depopulation and other provisions of the Reform Act, *400 which the court characterized as “ ‘a slender reed upon which to rest a takings claim.’ ” Id. at 627 , 591 A.2d 1005 (quoting Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 318, 327 , 62 L.Ed.2d 210, 223 (1979)).

1992Hence, the only “loss” mandated by the Act was the potential reduction in profits resulting from Twin City’s compliance with the residual market depopulation and other provisions of the Reform Act, *400 which the court characterized as “ ‘a slender reed upon which to rest a takings claim.’ ” Id. at 627 , 591 A.2d 1005 (quoting Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 318, 327 , 62 L.Ed.2d 210, 223 (1979)).

2000In other words, to avoid confiscatory results under the takings clause, " `the return should be one which is generally commensurate with returns on investments in other enterprises having comparable risks.' " Id. at 48, 590 A. 2d 191 (quoting Hutton Park Gardens v. Town Council, supra, 68 N.J. at 570, 350 A. 2d 1 ).

2000In other words, to avoid confiscatory results under the takings clause, " `the return should be one which is generally commensurate with returns on investments in other enterprises having comparable risks.' " Id. at 48, 590 A. 2d 191 (quoting Hutton Park Gardens v. Town Council, supra, 68 N.J. at 570, 350 A. 2d 1 ).

2025Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401, 417 (2012); Lavin v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Hackensack, 90 N.J. 145, 151-53 (1982).

2025Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401, 417 (2012); Lavin v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Hackensack, 90 N.J. 145, 151-53 (1982).

2025See Knick v. Twp. of Scott, 588 U.S. 180, 194 (2019) ("[B]ecause a taking without compensation violates the self-executing Fifth Amendment at the time of the taking, the property owner can bring a federal suit at that time."); Harrison v. Montgomery Cnty., 997 F.3d 643, 650 (6th Cir. 2021) (under federal law, the taking occurred when "the board adjudicated the foreclosure of [the landowner]'s property through the land bank process, not before").

2025See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1000-01 (1984).

2025See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1000-01 (1984).

2025See Knick v. Twp. of Scott, 588 U.S. 180, 194 (2019) ("[B]ecause a taking without compensation violates the self-executing Fifth Amendment at the time of the taking, the property owner can bring a federal suit at that time."); Harrison v. Montgomery Cnty., 997 F.3d 643, 650 (6th Cir. 2021) (under federal law, the taking occurred when "the board adjudicated the foreclosure of [the landowner]'s property through the land bank process, not before").

2025Similarly, in Sikorsky v. City of A-2486-23 21 Newburgh, 136 F.4th 56, 62-63 (2d Cir. 2025), the Second Circuit concluded res judicata did not bar plaintiff's claim for the surplus equity arising out of a foreclosure sale, despite two previous state court actions challenging the foreclosure, because the "harm did not occur until the City received (and began to 'retain') the money from the sale of the property." Moreover, it was impossible for plaintiff to assert a takings claim in the foreclosure action in 2018, even assuming she had notice of it.

2024Health & Welfare Fund v. Morristown Mem'l Hosp., 995 F. 2d 1179, 1191 (3d Cir. 1993) (rejecting a takings challenge to state system of setting hospital billing rates, in part, because plaintiffs' investment-backed expectations were reduced by "the historically heavy and constant regulation of health care" in the state).

2020See Marlton Plaza, 426 N.J.

2013In Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 186-87 , 105 S.Ct. 3108, 3116 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126, 138-39 (1985), the Court refused to consider the property owner’s takings claim because the owner had not utilized all of the procedures that the government regulations provided for obtaining just compensation.

2013In Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 186-87 , 105 S.Ct. 3108, 3116 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126, 138-39 (1985), the Court refused to consider the property owner’s takings claim because the owner had not utilized all of the procedures that the government regulations provided for obtaining just compensation.

2011See also Eggleston v. Pierce County, 148 Wash. 2d 760 , 64 P. 3d 618, 623 (2003) (denying a takings claim after police, pursuant to a valid warrant, rendered a house uninhabitable by removing a load-bearing wall because the "[p]olice power and the power of eminent domain are essential and distinct powers of government").

2011Id. at 225-26.

2011See also Eggleston v. Pierce County, 148 Wash. 2d 760 , 64 P. 3d 618, 623 (2003) (denying a takings claim after police, pursuant to a valid warrant, rendered a house uninhabitable by removing a load-bearing wall because the "[p]olice power and the power of eminent domain are essential and distinct powers of government").

2011See also Hurtado v. *389 United States, 410 U.S. 578, 589 , 93 S.Ct. 1157, 1164 , 35 L.Ed. 2d 508, 518 (1973) (holding that the detention of a material witness was not a taking, but a "personal sacrifice" which is a "necessary contribution of the individual to the welfare of the public").] Contrary to Wallace , we believe that the majority rule best addresses the most important policies underlying the takings clause—the protection of the property-owning minority from majoritarian redistributivism, stability and settled expectations within our economic system and the deterrence of arbitrary act

2011See also Hurtado v. *389 United States, 410 U.S. 578, 589 , 93 S.Ct. 1157, 1164 , 35 L.Ed. 2d 508, 518 (1973) (holding that the detention of a material witness was not a taking, but a "personal sacrifice" which is a "necessary contribution of the individual to the welfare of the public").] Contrary to Wallace , we believe that the majority rule best addresses the most important policies underlying the takings clause—the protection of the property-owning minority from majoritarian redistributivism, stability and settled expectations within our economic system and the deterrence of arbitrary act

2011See also Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F. 3d 1341, 1351 (10th Cir.1997) (finding that plaintiff who alleged officers had "ransacked" his home during a search by leaving his pistol submerged in a dogs' water bowl and leaving cigar and cigarette ashes in his bedding, failed to "allege any facts showing how his property was taken for public use in violation of the Fifth Amendment"); Birdsall v. City of Hartford, 249 F.Supp. 2d 163, 171 (D.Conn.2003) (holding that plaintiff did not have a Fifth Amendment takings claim where the officers' conduct resulted in loss of business for arrestee).

2011See also Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F. 3d 1341, 1351 (10th Cir.1997) (finding that plaintiff who alleged officers had "ransacked" his home during a search by leaving his pistol submerged in a dogs' water bowl and leaving cigar and cigarette ashes in his bedding, failed to "allege any facts showing how his property was taken for public use in violation of the Fifth Amendment"); Birdsall v. City of Hartford, 249 F.Supp. 2d 163, 171 (D.Conn.2003) (holding that plaintiff did not have a Fifth Amendment takings claim where the officers' conduct resulted in loss of business for arrestee).

2001Bello v. Walker, 840 F.2d 1124, 1131 (3d Cir.) (finding no taking where plaintiffs denied building permit but retained right to dedicate property to variety of other uses); Pace Res., Inc. v. Shrewsbury Township, 808 F.2d 1023 , 1031 (3d Cir.) (finding no taking where plaintiff not stripped of all *301 economically viable uses of property, although denied best use or uses of property), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 906 , 107 S.Ct. 2482 , 96 L.Ed.2d 375 (1987).

1999See Renne v. Township of Waterford, 73 Mich.App. 685 , 252 N.W.2d 842, 846 (Mich.Ct.App.1977) (upholding a sewer connection requirement and a ban on the use of a functioning septic tank); Weber City Sanitation Comm’n /v. Craft, 196 Va. 1140 , 87 S.E.2d 153 (1955)/ (upholding a mandatory water connection and well disconnection ordinance); cf. Andres v. City of Perrysburg, 47 Ohio App.3d 51 , 546 N.E.2d 1377, 1381 (Ohio App.Ct.1988) (rejecting a takings claim for a mandatory sewer connection where local law also required all connected property to be annexed by the city).

1999See Renne v. Township of Waterford, 73 Mich.App. 685 , 252 N.W.2d 842, 846 (Mich.Ct.App.1977) (upholding a sewer connection requirement and a ban on the use of a functioning septic tank); Weber City Sanitation Comm’n /v. Craft, 196 Va. 1140 , 87 S.E.2d 153 (1955)/ (upholding a mandatory water connection and well disconnection ordinance); cf. Andres v. City of Perrysburg, 47 Ohio App.3d 51 , 546 N.E.2d 1377, 1381 (Ohio App.Ct.1988) (rejecting a takings claim for a mandatory sewer connection where local law also required all connected property to be annexed by the city).