Search for: "Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City"
Results 41 - 60
of 74
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2012, 12:01 am
In conforming to the "parcel as a whole rule" propounded in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
6 May 2012, 6:51 am
Penn Central Transportation Co. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 9:00 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Penn Central Transportation Co. v City of New York. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 3:18 pm
City of Los Angeles v. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 7:00 am
Instead, using the test devised in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
At issue was whether the district court erred in using the Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
18 May 2011, 1:08 pm
New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), were satisfied. [read post]
18 May 2011, 1:08 pm
New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), were satisfied. [read post]
16 May 2011, 7:24 am
New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 12:01 am
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]
15 Apr 2011, 8:28 am
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]
14 Apr 2011, 6:31 pm
Rather, the en banc court found no taking after faithfully applying the three-factor test of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 12:01 am
New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 12:27 pm
Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922); Penn Central Transportation Co, et al. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 11:27 am
Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922); Penn Central Transportation Co, et al. v. [read post]
Ninth Circuit En Banc Panel Finds Goleta’s Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance Did Not Cause a Taking
23 Dec 2010, 11:22 am
The court found that the plaintiffs did not have a regulatory takings claim because none of the three factors for establishing a regulatory taking, set forth Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 9:23 am
Through her litigation and advocacy she created many of the statutory and case law precedent that offered protection to historic buildings, including Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 6:27 am
City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) and Nollan v. [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 8:40 am
Foy and New York Central Mutual Insurance Company Matter of Homan v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am
In inspections, the EPA said it found violations by Fafard, FRE Building Co. and Benchmark Engineering Corp. at sites in Holliston, Natick, Uxbridge, Milford, Marlborough and elsewhere. [read post]
