Cases pin-citing Lucas · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Lucas

Cases pin-citing Lucas

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council  ·  1992  ·  101 pinpoint citations from 40 cases, 36 distinct passages.

Sacramento Grazing Association, Inc. v. United States  ·  2021-07-23  ·  Federal Claims  ·  pin 505 U.S. at 1003
“If the claimant fails to demonstrate the existence of a legally cognizable property interest, the courts task is at an end.”
Newark Cab Association v. City of Newark  ·  2018-08-20  ·  Third Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
"[I]n the case of personal property, by reason of the State's traditionally high degree of control over commercial dealings, [a property owner] ought to be aware of the possibility that new regulation might even render his property economically worthless."
Baley v. United States  ·  2017-09-29  ·  Federal Claims  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“In general (at least with regard to permanent invasions), no matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation.”
Electro Sales and Services, Inc. and Salim Merchant v. the City of Terrell Hills  ·  2017-09-25  ·  Court of Appeals of Texas  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
"As we have said on numerous occasions, the Fifth Amendment is violated when land-use regulation 'does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.' "
Murr v. Wisconsin  ·  2017-06-23  ·  Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 S. Ct. at 1003
"[W]e avoid th[e] difficulty" of determining the relevant parcel "in the present case"
2910 Georgia Avenue LLC v. District of Columbia  ·  2017-02-14  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“The answer to this difficult question may lie in how the owner’s reasonable expectations have been shaped by the State’s law of property”
Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society  ·  2016-06-13  ·  W.D. Washington  ·  pin 120 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“Lujan, since it involved the establishment of injury in fact at the summary judgment stage, required specific facts to be adduced by sworn testimony; had the same challenge to a generalized allegation of injury in fact been made at the pleading stage, it would have been unsuccessful.”
In re Davis  ·  2015-10-01  ·  S.D. Ohio  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“[W]hile property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.”
Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark  ·  2014-01-13  ·  W.D. Washington  ·  pin 120 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“Lujan, since it involved the establishment of injury in fact at the summary judgment stage, required specific facts to be adduced by sworn testimony; had the same challenge to a generalized allegation of injury in fact been made at the pleading stage, it would have been unsuccessful.”
Comunidad Balboa, LLC v. City of Nassau Bay  ·  2013-06-13  ·  Court of Appeals of Texas  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“[W]hen the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking.”
National Amusements, Inc. v. Borough of Palmyra  ·  2012-02-03  ·  D. New Jersey  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“The Takings Clause, while conferring substantial protection on property owners, does not eliminate the police power of the State to enact limitation on the use of their property.”
City of Rio Rancho v. AMREP SOUTHWEST INC.  ·  2011-08-22  ·  New Mexico Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“[W]hen the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave [the] property economically idle, [the owner] has suffered a taking.”
Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. Bogorff  ·  2010-05-12  ·  District Court of Appeal of Florida  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“South Carolina must do more than proffer the legislature’s declaration that the uses Lucas desires are inconsistent with the public interest, or the conclusory assertion that they violate a common-law [for public nuisance]”
DEPT. OF AGR. & CONSUMER SERVS. v. Bogorff  ·  2010-05-12  ·  District Court of Appeal of Florida  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
"South Carolina must do more than proffer the legislature's declaration that the uses Lucas desires are inconsistent with the public interest, or the conclusory assertion that they violate a common-law [for public nuisance]"
Bettendorf v. St. Croix County  ·  2010-01-15  ·  W.D. Wisconsin  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“when the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses [of his land] in the name of the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking”
Kafka v. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks  ·  2008-12-31  ·  Montana Supreme Court  ·  pin 505 U.S. at 1003
“[T]otal deprivation of beneficial use is, from the landowner’s point of view, the equivalent of a physical appropriation.”
Kafka v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH  ·  2008-12-31  ·  Montana Supreme Court  ·  pin 505 U.S. at 1003
"[T]otal deprivation of beneficial use is, from the landowner's point of view, the equivalent of a physical appropriation."
Acadia Technology, Inc. v. United States  ·  2006-08-08  ·  Federal Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“[I]n the case of personal property, by reason of the State’s traditionally high degree of control over commercial dealings, [the owner] ought to be aware of the possibility that new regulation might even render his property economically worthless.”
Davet v. Cleveland  ·  2006-08-01  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  pin 505 U.S. at 1003
“[L]and-use regulation does not effect a taking if it substantially advances legitimate state interests . . . .”
Richard F. Davet v. City of Cleveland, Robert Vilkas and City of Cleveland Department of Building & Housing  ·  2006-08-01  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“[L]and-use regulation does not effect a taking if it substantially advances legitimate state interests ....”
Davet v. Cleveland  ·  2006-06-22  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  pin 505 U.S. at 1003
“[L]and-use regulation does not effect a taking if it substantially advances legitimate state interests . . . .”
Richard F. Davet v. City of Cleveland, Robert Vilkas and City of Cleveland Department of Building & Housing  ·  2006-06-22  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“[L]and-use regulation does not effect a taking if it substantially advances legitimate state interests ....”
Kingsway Cathedral, Vs. Iowa Department Of Transportation And City Of Des Moines, Iowa  ·  2006-03-10  ·  Supreme Court of Iowa  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 S. Ct. at 1003
“[N]o matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation [for physical invasion].”
Kingsway Cathedral v. Iowa Department of Transportation  ·  2006-03-10  ·  Supreme Court of Iowa  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 S. Ct. at 1003
“[N]o matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation [for physical invasion].”
Consolidated Waste Systems, LLC v. Metro Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee  ·  2005-06-30  ·  Court of Appeals of Tennessee  ·  pin 505 U.S. at 1003
“. . . we have generally eschewed any set formula for determining how far is too far . . .”
Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n v. Rowe  ·  2004-03-09  ·  D. Maine  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“[W]e have found categorical treatment appropriate ... where regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land”
SHEFFIELD DEVEL. CO. INC. v. City of Glenn Heights  ·  2004-03-05  ·  Texas Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
"It seems to us that the property owner necessarily expects the uses of his property to be restricted, from time to time, by various measures newly enacted by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police powers...."
B.A.M. Development, L.L.C. v. Salt Lake County  ·  2004-02-20  ·  Court of Appeals of Utah  ·  5 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
"[A]t least with regard to permanent invasions[], no matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation."
In Re Appeal of Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates  ·  2003-12-18  ·  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
"It seems to us that the property owner necessarily expects the uses of his property to be restricted, from time to time, by various measures newly enacted by the State in legitimate exercise of its police powers."
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency  ·  2002-04-23  ·  Supreme Court  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 505 U.S. at 1003
"[T]he fact that regulations that leave the owner of land without economically beneficial or productive options for its use . . . carry with them a heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service"
Henry v. Jefferson County Planning Comm'n  ·  2001-06-26  ·  N.D. West Virginia  ·  pin 112 S. Ct. at 2886
“The second situation in which we have found categorical treatment appropriate is where regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.”
Conti v. United States  ·  2001-01-11  ·  Federal Claims  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“by reason of the State’s traditionally high degree of control over commercial dealings, [a purchaser] ought to be aware of the possibility that new regulation might even render his property economically worthless... ”
Phillip Morris Inc. v. Reilly  ·  2000-09-07  ·  D. Massachusetts  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“If ... the uses of private property were subject to unbridled, uncompensated qualification under the police power, ‘the natural tendency of human nature [would be] to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappeared].’ ”
McQueen v. South Carolina Coastal Council  ·  2000-04-17  ·  Supreme Court of South Carolina  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“To adopt Lucas’ argument would therefore be to overrule Carter.”
Schneider v. California Department of Corrections  ·  1998-08-04  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“Certainly all of the traditional forms of real and personal property fall with [the definition of ‘property’].”
Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., and Monterey-Del Monte Dunes Corporation v. City of Monterey  ·  1996-09-13  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 112 S. Ct. at 2886
“For what is the land but the profits thereof?”
Bass Enterprises Production Co. v. United States  ·  1996-05-24  ·  Federal Claims  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“regulations that leave the owner of land without economically beneficial or productive options for its use — typically ... requir[e] land to be left substantially in its natural state____”
Front Royal & Warren County Industrial Park Corp. v. Town of Front Royal  ·  1996-04-11  ·  W.D. Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 112 L. Ed. 2d at 798
“when the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking”
Zealy v. City of Waukesha  ·  1995-05-17  ·  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin  ·  pin 112 S. Ct. at 2886
"deprivation of all economically feasible use"
Page 1 of 3   Next →