6 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
Buffalo Teachers Federation v. Tobegreen2 sentences2019The trial justice aptly reasoned that "the City's ordinances do not present the classic taking in which a government directly appropriates private property for its own use. * * * Rather, the interference with the plaintiffs' COLA benefits 'arises from a public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good.' " (Quoting Buffalo Teachers Federation , 464 F.3d at 374 .) See Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation , 475 U.S. 211 , 225, 106 S.Ct. 1018 , 89 L.Ed.2d 166 (1986) (analyzing a takings claim involving contract rights under the Penn Central 2019The trial justice aptly reasoned that "the City's ordinances do not present the classic taking in which a government directly appropriates private property for its own use. * * * Rather, the interference with the plaintiffs' COLA benefits 'arises from a public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good.' " (Quoting Buffalo Teachers Federation , 464 F.3d at 374 .) See Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation , 475 U.S. 211 , 225, 106 S.Ct. 1018 , 89 L.Ed.2d 166 (1986) (analyzing a takings claim involving contract rights under the Penn Central | 2 | 3 |
Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporationgreen2 sentences2020Since identifying the Penn Central factors, the Supreme Court has held that “the fact that legislation disregards or destroys existing contractual rights does not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking.” Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 475 U.S. 211, 217, 224, 225-27 (1986) (brackets omitted) (citing Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 517 (1944)) (holding legislation enacting a fine for employers that withdrew from a multiemployer pension plan was not a regulatory taking pursuant to the Penn Central factors). 2020Since identifying the Penn Central factors, the Supreme Court has held that “the fact that legislation disregards or destroys existing contractual rights does not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking.” Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 475 U.S. 211, 217, 224, 225-27 (1986) (brackets omitted) (citing Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 517 (1944)) (holding legislation enacting a fine for employers that withdrew from a multiemployer pension plan was not a regulatory taking pursuant to the Penn Central factors). | 2 | 3 |
Bowles v. Willinghamgreen2 sentences2020Since identifying the Penn Central factors, the Supreme Court has held that “the fact that legislation disregards or destroys existing contractual rights does not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking.” Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 475 U.S. 211, 217, 224, 225-27 (1986) (brackets omitted) (citing Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 517 (1944)) (holding legislation enacting a fine for employers that withdrew from a multiemployer pension plan was not a regulatory taking pursuant to the Penn Central factors). 2020Since identifying the Penn Central factors, the Supreme Court has held that “the fact that legislation disregards or destroys existing contractual rights does not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking.” Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 475 U.S. 211, 217, 224, 225-27 (1986) (brackets omitted) (citing Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 517 (1944)) (holding legislation enacting a fine for employers that withdrew from a multiemployer pension plan was not a regulatory taking pursuant to the Penn Central factors). | 2 | 2 |
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Councilgreen2 sentences2003This claim ignores the distinction between the "exceptional circumstance" of per se regulatory takings under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), and the more routine partial regulatory takings analyzed under the Penn Central factors (discussed in detail below). 2003This claim ignores the distinction between the "exceptional circumstance" of per se regulatory takings under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), and the more routine partial regulatory takings analyzed under the Penn Central factors (discussed in detail below). | 1 | 2 |
Palazzolo v. Rhode Islandgreen2 sentences2005Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001). 2005Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Alegria v. Keeneygreen2 sentences2000See also Alegria v. Keeney, 687 A.2d 1249, 1252 (R.I.1997) (applying the Penn Central test). 2000See also Alegria v. Keeney, 687 A.2d 1249, 1252 (R.I.1997) (applying the Penn Central test). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
green
2 sentences2020“In Penn Central, the United States Supreme Court listed three factors it considered - 27 - of ‘particular significance’ in the regulatory taking analysis: (1) ‘the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant’; (2) ‘the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations’; and (3) ‘the character of the governmental action.’” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124 ) (the Penn Central factors). 2020“In Penn Central, the United States Supreme Court listed three factors it considered - 27 - of ‘particular significance’ in the regulatory taking analysis: (1) ‘the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant’; (2) ‘the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations’; and (3) ‘the character of the governmental action.’” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124 ) (the Penn Central factors). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Sherman v. Town of Chester
green
2 sentences2020“In Penn Central, the United States Supreme Court listed three factors it considered - 27 - of ‘particular significance’ in the regulatory taking analysis: (1) ‘the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant’; (2) ‘the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations’; and (3) ‘the character of the governmental action.’” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124 ) (the Penn Central factors). 2020“In Penn Central, the United States Supreme Court listed three factors it considered - 27 - of ‘particular significance’ in the regulatory taking analysis: (1) ‘the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant’; (2) ‘the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations’; and (3) ‘the character of the governmental action.’” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124 ) (the Penn Central factors). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.
green
2 sentences2005As recently observed by the United States Supreme Court in Lingle v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc, "[t]he Penn Central inquiry turns in large part, albeit not exclusively, upon the magnitude of a regulation's economic impact and the degree to which it interferes with legitimate property interests." 544 U.S. ___ , 125 S. Ct. 2074 , 2082 (2005). 2005The body of state law to which the State refers does impact Plaintiff's reasonable investment-backed expectations as will be discussed below. 38 As observed recently by the United States Supreme Court while citing to its decision in Palazzolo, "(t)he Penn Central factors — though each has given rise to vexing subsidiary questions — have served as the principal guidelines for resolving regulatory takings claims that do not fall within the physical takings or Lucas rules." Lingle v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. ___ , 125 S. Ct. 2074 , 2082 (2005). 39 The evidence is to the effect that all suc | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Palazzolo v. State Ex Rel. Tavares
green
2 sentences2005Palazzolo v. State, 746 A.2d 707 , 714 (R.I. 2000). 7 On writ of certiorari, the United States Supreme Court found the case ripe for decision, reversed the holding of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, and remanded the case for the purpose of a Penn Central analysis. 2005Palazzolo v. State, 746 A.2d 707 , 714 (R.I. 2000). 7 On writ of certiorari, the United States Supreme Court found the case ripe for decision, reversed the holding of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, and remanded the case for the purpose of a Penn Central analysis. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lloyd A. Good, Jr. v. United States
green
2 sentences2000Good, 189 F.3d at 1363 . 2000Good, 189 F.3d at 1363 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.