Search for: "In re: In the Matter of Penn Central" Results 21 - 40 of 115
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jan 2009, 7:09 am
I think that’s a good question — indeed, it goes right to the heart of the matter. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 8:41 pm
  The re-adjustments in both respects will mark the trajectory of Cuban life for the next generation (compare here, with here). [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 12:06 pm by Mandelman
  And don’t laugh… that’s pretty much what they thought… and still think for that matter. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 10:48 am by Jason Rantanen
Mark Lemley (Stanford)James Malackowski (Ocean Tomo, LLC)David Abrams (Penn) Mark Lemley - Why Do Juries Decide if Patents are Valid? [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 12:42 pm by Norman L. Eisen
Scott Perry (R-Penn.) is protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from the Jan. 6 criminal investigation. [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 10:33 am by John Elwood
This case asks whether two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels can be combined for regulatory takings analysis under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2021, 9:12 pm by Andrew Coopersmith
Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 12:57 pm by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
The city asserted that the trial court should have applied the Penn Central three-factor ad hoc regulatory takings test, and not the per se Lucas test. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 2:55 pm
Yet the old central planning template may find a way of re-emerging in the form of oversight rules for the activities of foreign capital. [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm by John Elwood
Or sixths, if we’re talking about Friedman v. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 10:55 am by Miriam Seifter
But to apply a multi-factor test at both steps, Tseytlin said, would amount to “Penn Central squared,” and would lead to an overly complex analysis. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 9:00 am by Jurgen Kurtz
Supreme Court’s decision in Penn Central Transportation Co. v City of New York. [read post]