Search for: "Palazzolo v. Rhode Island" Results 1 - 20 of 45
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Feb 2012, 2:19 pm by landuseprof
Rhode Island, forthcoming in the Vermont Law Review. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 3:56 pm by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), which held it improper to bar a takings claim simply because the property at issue was transferred after a regulation’s enactment, the court limited Palazzolo’s precedential authority to specific factual and procedural settings. [read post]
3 May 2012, 12:01 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Rhode Island, 533 US. 606 (2001), the Supreme Court left unanswered the question posed by their article's title The potential costs of abandoning Palazzolo extend beyond jurisprudential concerns. [read post]
16 May 2011, 7:24 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
The petitioners asserted the Ninth Circuit''s conclusion contradicted Palazzolo v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 11:41 am by Record on Appeal
In 2001, the United States Supreme Court held in Palazzolo v. [read post]
29 Dec 2014, 12:44 pm by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), the Supreme Court eliminated the "notice" argument: Palazzolo’s narrow exception has no application here. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 12:31 pm by Mark Murakami
Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) which held that the transfer of property was irrelevant to a regulatory takings claim.  [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 8:56 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), this Court rejected the proposition that "postenactment purchasers cannot challenge a regulation under the Takings Clause." [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 11:59 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), this Court repudiated the so-called Notice Rule, which held that post-enactment purchasers could not state a claim for a regulatory taking arising from restrictions adopted before they took title to their property. [read post]