Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Murr v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences2025The flexible Penn Central test aims to “strike[] a balance between property owners’ rights and the government’s authority to advance the common good.” Murr, 582 U.S. at 408 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). 2025The flexible Penn Central test aims to “strike[] a balance between property owners’ rights and the government’s authority to advance the common good.” Murr, 582 U.S. at 408 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). | 3 | 3 |
Littman v. Gimellogreen2 sentences2020Littman v. Gimello, 115 N.J. 154, 164 (1989). 2020Littman v. Gimello, 115 N.J. 154, 164 (1989). | 2 | 2 |
Sheetz v. El Dorado Countygreen2 sentences2025As the Supreme Court most recently explained, “[a] use restriction that is ‘reasonably necessary to the effectuation of a substantial government purpose’ is not a taking unless it saps too much of 19 the property’s value or frustrates the owner’s investment-backed expectations.” Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267, 274 (2024) (quoting Penn Cent., 438 U.S. at 127 ). 2025As the Supreme Court most recently explained, “[a] use restriction that is ‘reasonably necessary to the effectuation of a substantial government purpose’ is not a taking unless it saps too much of 19 the property’s value or frustrates the owner’s investment-backed expectations.” Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267, 274 (2024) (quoting Penn Cent., 438 U.S. at 127 ). | 1 | 1 |
Yee v. City of Escondidogreen2 sentences2024Where there is no per se taking, and where the government merely regulates the use of property, compensation is required only if considerations such as the purpose of the regulation or the extent to which it deprives the owner of the economic use of the property suggest that the regulation has unfairly singled out the property owner A-2767-21 21 to bear a burden that should be borne by the public as a whole. [Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 522-23 (1992).] Plaintiffs argue the uncontroverted record shows: adverse economic impact to the hospitals; undue infringement on their investment 2024Where there is no per se taking, and where the government merely regulates the use of property, compensation is required only if considerations such as the purpose of the regulation or the extent to which it deprives the owner of the economic use of the property suggest that the regulation has unfairly singled out the property owner A-2767-21 21 to bear a burden that should be borne by the public as a whole. [Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 522-23 (1992).] Plaintiffs argue the uncontroverted record shows: adverse economic impact to the hospitals; undue infringement on their investment | 1 | 1 |
Mansoldo v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Ibid.; see also Mansoldo v. State, 187 N.J. 50, 58-59 (2006) (explaining "protection from A-2767-21 14 governmental takings under the New Jersey constitution is coextensive with protection under the federal constitution" and that the Penn Central factors serve to resolve regulatory takings claims that are not per se physical takings). 2024Ibid.; see also Mansoldo v. State, 187 N.J. 50, 58-59 (2006) (explaining "protection from A-2767-21 14 governmental takings under the New Jersey constitution is coextensive with protection under the federal constitution" and that the Penn Central factors serve to resolve regulatory takings claims that are not per se physical takings). | 1 | 1 |
Mason v. Sportsman's Pubgreen2 sentences2019See Mason, 305 N.J. 2019See Mason, 305 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Washington Market Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Trentongreen2 sentences2019A-0959-17T2 38 In Washington Market Enterprises v. City of Trenton, the Court noted "[t]he general question as to when governmental action amounts to a taking of property has always presented a vexing and thorny problem," which has led to seemingly inconsistent results. 68 N.J. 107, 116 (1975). 2019A-0959-17T2 38 In Washington Market Enterprises v. City of Trenton, the Court noted "[t]he general question as to when governmental action amounts to a taking of property has always presented a vexing and thorny problem," which has led to seemingly inconsistent results. 68 N.J. 107, 116 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.green2 sentences2006Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 538-40 , 125 S.Ct. 2074, 2082 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876, 888 (2005) (“The Penn Central factors ... have served as the principal guidelines for resolving regulatory takings claims that do not fall within the physical takings or Lucas rules.”). 2006Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 538-40 , 125 S.Ct. 2074, 2082 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876, 888 (2005) (“The Penn Central factors ... have served as the principal guidelines for resolving regulatory takings claims that do not fall within the physical takings or Lucas rules.”). | 1 | 1 |
Bronco Wine Co. v. Jollygreen2 sentences2006Penn Central provides “[a]n ad hoc factual inquiry ... for regulatory action that diminishes but does not destroy the value of property by restricting its use.” Bronco Wine Co. v. Jolly, 129 Cal.App.4th 988 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 462, 497 (2005). 2006Penn Central provides “[a]n ad hoc factual inquiry ... for regulatory action that diminishes but does not destroy the value of property by restricting its use.” Bronco Wine Co. v. Jolly, 129 Cal.App.4th 988 , 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 462, 497 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
green
2 sentences2025The Penn Central test balances “factors such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.” Cedar Point, 594 U.S. at 148 (citing Penn Cent., 438 U.S. at 124 ). 2025The Penn Central test balances “factors such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.” Cedar Point, 594 U.S. at 148 (citing Penn Cent., 438 U.S. at 124 ). | 2 | 2019–2025 |
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
green
2 sentences2025The Penn Central test balances “factors such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.” Cedar Point, 594 U.S. at 148 (citing Penn Cent., 438 U.S. at 124 ). 2025The Penn Central test balances “factors such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.” Cedar Point, 594 U.S. at 148 (citing Penn Cent., 438 U.S. at 124 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.