6 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ehlebracht v. Crowned Ridge Wind II, LLC and S.D. Pub. Util. Comm'ngreen1 sentence2024See also Ehlebracht v. Crowned Ridge Wind II, LLC, 2022 S.D. 19, ¶ 39 , 972 N.W.2d 477 , 489–90 (discussing four possible theories of a takings claim). [¶57.] SCS responds that “longstanding restrictions on property rights—like the right to survey access—are not takings.” SCS points out that, in Cedar Point, the Supreme Court specifically stated that “many government-authorized physical invasions will not amount to takings because they are consistent with longstanding background restrictions on property rights.” Id. at 160 , 141 S. Ct. at 2079 . | 1 | 1 |
Rupert v. City of Rapid Citygreen2 sentences2017See Rupert, 2013 S.D. 13, ¶ 10 , 827 N.W.2d at 61 ("[T]he viability of a takings claim is dependent upon ‘situation-specific factual inquiries.’ ” (quoting Ark. 2017In answering this question, we may not simply accept the label used in the complaint. “[T]he viability of a takings claim is dependent upon ‘situation-specific factual inquiries.’ ” Id. ¶ 10, 827 N.W.2d at 61 (quoting Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017Game & Fish Comm’n, 568 U.S. at 32 , 133 S.Ct. at 519 (“[RJegularly recurring flooding [gives] rise to a takings claim ...(emphasis added)). 20 So whether Landowners realized it or not, their argument from the beginning has necessarily been that the State permanently appropriated their land for the purpose of draining water—i.e., that the State took a drainage easement. 2017Game & Fish Comm’n, 568 U.S. at 32 , 133 S.Ct. at 519 (“[RJegularly recurring flooding [gives] rise to a takings claim ...(emphasis added)). 20 So whether Landowners realized it or not, their argument from the beginning has necessarily been that the State permanently appropriated their land for the purpose of draining water—i.e., that the State took a drainage easement. | 1 | 1 |
Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.green2 sentences2006See Lingle, 544 U.S. at -, 125 S.Ct. at 2081-82, 161 L.Ed.2d 876 . [¶ 55.] Under the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Penn Central, three principal factors must be analyzed in order to determine whether a regulation goes so far as to effect a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. 2006Lingle, 544 U.S. at -, 125 S.Ct. at 2082, 2087, 161 L.Ed.2d 876 ; Gausby, 328 U.S. at 264-65, 66 S.Ct. at 1067-68, 90 L.Ed. 1206 (recognizing that a property owner owns the airspace above the land and because continuous invasions of airspace “affect the use of the surface of the land itself,” such invasions of airspace ■ “are in the same category as invasions of the surface” and may also be a taking). | 1 | 1 |
Parsons v. South Dakota Lottery Commissiongreen1 sentence2006No. 58-1 v. McGee, 527 N.W.2d 282, 284 (S.D.1995) (citing Parsons, 504 N.W.2d 593, 595 (quoting Gladstone, Realtors, 441 U.S. at 99 , 99 S.Ct. at 1608 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 76 ))) (emphasis added). [3] Although I would address Landowners' taking claim as a part of the standing issue, I fully concur in the Court's takings analysis in Issue 3. [4] The Landowners' claim is really about damage to real property, not an outright permanent taking. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co.green2 sentences2006A chal-lenged government action that causes economic- harm will not support a takings claim when the action does not interfere with “interests that were sufficiently bound up with the reasonable expectations of the claimant, to constitute ‘property’ for Fifth Amendment purposes.” Id. (citing United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 , 65 S.Ct. 761 , 89 L.Ed. 1101 (1945) (“interest in high-water level of river for runoff for tailwaters to maintain power head is not property”); United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53 , 33 S.Ct. 667 , 57 L.Ed. 1063 (1913) (“no pr 2006A chal-lenged government action that causes economic- harm will not support a takings claim when the action does not interfere with “interests that were sufficiently bound up with the reasonable expectations of the claimant, to constitute ‘property’ for Fifth Amendment purposes.” Id. (citing United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 , 65 S.Ct. 761 , 89 L.Ed. 1101 (1945) (“interest in high-water level of river for runoff for tailwaters to maintain power head is not property”); United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53 , 33 S.Ct. 667 , 57 L.Ed. 1063 (1913) (“no pr | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Willow River Power Co.green2 sentences2006A chal-lenged government action that causes economic- harm will not support a takings claim when the action does not interfere with “interests that were sufficiently bound up with the reasonable expectations of the claimant, to constitute ‘property’ for Fifth Amendment purposes.” Id. (citing United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 , 65 S.Ct. 761 , 89 L.Ed. 1101 (1945) (“interest in high-water level of river for runoff for tailwaters to maintain power head is not property”); United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53 , 33 S.Ct. 667 , 57 L.Ed. 1063 (1913) (“no pr 2006A chal-lenged government action that causes economic- harm will not support a takings claim when the action does not interfere with “interests that were sufficiently bound up with the reasonable expectations of the claimant, to constitute ‘property’ for Fifth Amendment purposes.” Id. (citing United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 , 65 S.Ct. 761 , 89 L.Ed. 1101 (1945) (“interest in high-water level of river for runoff for tailwaters to maintain power head is not property”); United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53 , 33 S.Ct. 667 , 57 L.Ed. 1063 (1913) (“no pr | 1 | 1 |
Kelo v. City of New Londongreen2 sentences2006See Lingle, 544 U.S. at ___ _ ___, 125 S.Ct. at 2081-82 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 . [¶ 55.] Under the United States Supreme Court's holding in Penn Central, three principal factors must be analyzed in order to determine whether a regulation goes so far as to effect a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. 2006Lingle, 544 U.S. at ___ , 125 S.Ct. at 2082, 2087 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 ; Causby, 328 U.S. at 264-65 , 66 S.Ct. at 1067-68 , 90 L.Ed. 1206 (recognizing that a property owner owns the airspace above the land and because continuous invasions of airspace "affect the use of the surface of the land itself," such invasions of airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface" and may also be a taking). | 1 | 1 |
Agar School District 58-1 Board of Education v. McGeegreen1 sentence2006No. 58-1 v. McGee, 527 N.W.2d 282, 284 (S.D.1995) (citing Parsons, 504 N.W.2d 593, 595 (quoting Gladstone, Realtors, 441 U.S. at 99 , 99 S.Ct. at 1608 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 76 ))) (emphasis added). [3] Although I would address Landowners' taking claim as a part of the standing issue, I fully concur in the Court's takings analysis in Issue 3. [4] The Landowners' claim is really about damage to real property, not an outright permanent taking. | 1 | 1 |
Dolan v. City of Tigardgreen2 sentences2002See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 383-84 , 114 S.Ct. 2309, 2316 , 129 L.Ed.2d 304, 315 (1994) (citation omitted). 2002See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 383-84 , 114 S.Ct. 2309, 2316 , 129 L.Ed.2d 304, 315 (1994) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hurley v. State
green
2 sentences2006Id. [¶ 17.] In analyzing the plaintiffs’ takings claim, we noted that the proper exercise of police power must be reasonable and cannot be arbitrary. 82 S.D. at 163 , 143 N.W.2d at 726 . 2006Id. [¶ 17.] In analyzing the plaintiffs’ takings claim, we noted that the proper exercise of police power must be reasonable and cannot be arbitrary. 82 S.D. at 163 , 143 N.W.2d at 726 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Schliem v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2017Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23, 32 , 133 S.Ct. 511, 518 , 184 L.Ed.2d 417 (2012)). [¶67.] As we recently explained, “a landowner is not entitled to compensation under Article VI simply because he has suffered some loss or his property has been devalued as a result of state action.” Schliem, 2016 S.D. 90 , ¶ 14, 888 N.W.2d at 224 . “[T]he word damaged, as used in the South Dakota Constitution, contemplates only legal injury.” Id. ¶ 14, 888 N.W.2d at 225 . 2017Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23, 32 , 133 S.Ct. 511, 518 , 184 L.Ed.2d 417 (2012)). [¶67.] As we recently explained, “a landowner is not entitled to compensation under Article VI simply because he has suffered some loss or his property has been devalued as a result of state action.” Schliem, 2016 S.D. 90 , ¶ 14, 888 N.W.2d at 224 . “[T]he word damaged, as used in the South Dakota Constitution, contemplates only legal injury.” Id. ¶ 14, 888 N.W.2d at 225 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation
green
2 sentences2006Thus, the manner and degree of proof necessary for Landowners to sustain their standing burden changed from the outset when they alleged a takings claim to the final disposition when they were required to prove that claim: At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we "presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim." [ Lujan v. ] National Wildlife Federation, supra, 497 U.S. [871] at 889, 110 S.Ct. [3177] at 3189[. 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990)]. 2006Thus, the manner and degree of proof necessary for Landowners to sustain their standing burden changed from the outset when they alleged a takings claim to the final disposition when they were required to prove that claim: At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we “presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.” [Lujan v.] National Wildlife Federation, supra, 497 U.S. [871] at 889, 110 S.Ct. [3177] at 3189[, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990)]. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Causby
green
2 sentences2006Lingle, 544 U.S. at ___ , 125 S.Ct. at 2082, 2087 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 ; Causby, 328 U.S. at 264-65 , 66 S.Ct. at 1067-68 , 90 L.Ed. 1206 (recognizing that a property owner owns the airspace above the land and because continuous invasions of airspace "affect the use of the surface of the land itself," such invasions of airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface" and may also be a taking). 2006Lingle, 544 U.S. at -, 125 S.Ct. at 2082, 2087, 161 L.Ed.2d 876 ; Gausby, 328 U.S. at 264-65, 66 S.Ct. at 1067-68, 90 L.Ed. 1206 (recognizing that a property owner owns the airspace above the land and because continuous invasions of airspace “affect the use of the surface of the land itself,” such invasions of airspace ■ “are in the same category as invasions of the surface” and may also be a taking). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Reis v. Miller
green
1 sentence2006It is the actions of the hunters that would be the cause of losses, as it is 'the intrusion of shot onto Landowners’ property and shot left on their lands, and not the legislative enactment of SDCL 41-9-1.1(2), that is the legal cause of' any injury incurred by Landowners. 'See supra ¶¶ 61-63. 17 Conclusion [¶ 84.] An examination of the history of our hunting statutes in Reis, 1996 SD 75, ¶¶ 28-31 , 550 N.W.2d at 84-85 , (Gilbert-son, J., concurring),- shows that for a great part of our history there were no, or only limited, criminal restrictions upon hunting. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood
green
2 sentences2006No. 58-1 v. McGee, 527 N.W.2d 282, 284 (S.D.1995) (citing Parsons, 504 N.W.2d 593, 595 (quoting Gladstone, Realtors, 441 U.S. at 99 , 99 S.Ct. at 1608 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 76 ))) (emphasis added). [3] Although I would address Landowners' taking claim as a part of the standing issue, I fully concur in the Court's takings analysis in Issue 3. [4] The Landowners' claim is really about damage to real property, not an outright permanent taking. 2006No. 58-1 v. McGee, 527 N.W.2d 282, 284 (S.D.1995) (citing Parsons, 504 N.W.2d 593, 595 (quoting Gladstone, Realtors, 441 U.S. at 99 , 99 S.Ct. at 1608 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 76 ))) (emphasis added). [3] Although I would address Landowners' taking claim as a part of the standing issue, I fully concur in the Court's takings analysis in Issue 3. [4] The Landowners' claim is really about damage to real property, not an outright permanent taking. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
green
2 sentences2006A challenged government action that causes economic harm will not support a takings claim when the action does not interfere with "interests that were sufficiently bound up with the reasonable expectations of the claimant to constitute `property' for Fifth Amendment purposes." Id. (citing United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 , 65 S.Ct. 761 , 89 L.Ed. 1101 (1945) ("interest in high-water level of river for runoff for tailwaters to maintain power head is not property"); United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53 , 33 S.Ct. 667 , 57 L.Ed. 1063 (1913) ("no prope 2006A chal-lenged government action that causes economic- harm will not support a takings claim when the action does not interfere with “interests that were sufficiently bound up with the reasonable expectations of the claimant, to constitute ‘property’ for Fifth Amendment purposes.” Id. (citing United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 , 65 S.Ct. 761 , 89 L.Ed. 1101 (1945) (“interest in high-water level of river for runoff for tailwaters to maintain power head is not property”); United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53 , 33 S.Ct. 667 , 57 L.Ed. 1063 (1913) (“no pr | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.