Search for: "Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City" Results 1 - 20 of 74
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Sep 2020, 4:00 am by Josh Blackman
The Supreme Court found that the City of New York did not violate the Takings Clause in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
20 Sep 2021, 4:00 am by Josh Blackman
The Supreme Court found that the City of New York did not violate the Takings Clause in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 6:31 pm by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Rather, the en banc court found no taking after faithfully applying the three-factor test of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 8:28 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
As this Court confirmed in Lingle, to determine if a regulation goes too far, a court should balance three factually-intensive factors that were identified in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2008, 10:02 am
City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) and Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 6:00 am by Josh Blackman
Gruen helped to draft the landmark preservation laws that the Supreme Court were upheld in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 12:58 pm by UChicagoLaw
On the other hand, it is often treated, most notably under the Supreme Court’s now pivotal decision in Penn Central Transportation Co v. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 12:58 pm by UChicagoLaw
On the other hand, it is often treated, most notably under the Supreme Court’s now pivotal decision in Penn Central Transportation Co v. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 9:43 am
City of San Rafael, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit considered, among other things, whether the City of San Rafael’s mobilehome rent control ordinance (the “Ordinance”) constituted either a regulatory taking under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 12:01 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), and has now been so broadly interpreted by some lower courts as to provide fodder for mischief of the kind manifested by the court below. [read post]