Citation network
Palazzolo Vs. Rhode Island
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 2001
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Palazzolo v. RhodeSearch
-
Island - 533 U.S. 606 (2001) October Term, 2000 Syllabus Palazzolo V. RhodeSearch
-
of his property, resulting in a total taking requiring compensation under Lucas v. SouthSearch
-
expectation that he could develop his property, and, therefore, he could not recover under Penn Central Transp. Co. v. NewSearch
-
a final decision regarding their application to the property at issue. Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. HamiltonSearch
-
the responsible agency determines the extent of permitted development on the land. MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. YoloSearch
-
regulation. The State may not by this means secure a windfall for itself. See, e. g., Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. BeckwithSearch
-
when a claim becomes ripe is too blunt an instrument to accord with the duty to compensate for what is taken. Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of his property, ibid., resulting in a total tak- 616 ing requiring compensation under Lucas v. SouthSearch
-
of all economic use, the court concluded he could not recover under the more general test of Penn Central Transp. Co. v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
requires compensation under the Clause. Loretto v. TeleprompterSearch
-
Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 , 427 (1982). In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSearch
-
Agins v. CitySearch
-
Armstrong v. UnitedSearch
-
ripeness, and acquisition which postdates the regulation. A In Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. HamiltonSearch
-
on the land in question. MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. YoloSearch
-
Suitum v. TahoeSearch
-
cf. Agins v. CitySearch
-
burden property by imposition of repetitive or unfair land-use procedures in order to avoid a final decision. Monterey v. DelSearch
-
principles the owner's damages will be based upon the property's fair market value, see, e. g., Olson v. UnitedSearch
-
reviewing state court has cited noncompliance with reasonable statelaw exhaustion or pre-permit processes, see Felder v. CaseySearch
-
Property rights are created by the State. See, e. g., Phillips v. WashingtonSearch
-
to the regulation. The State may not by this means secure a windfall for itself. See Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. BeckwithSearch
-
at the time of the taking, and that the right to compensation is not passed to a subsequent purchaser. See Danforth v. UnitedSearch
-
not have been taken, by a previous owner. 629 There is controlling precedent for our conclusion. Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Id., at 834, n.2. It is argued that Nollan's holding was limited by the later decision in Lucas v. SouthSearch
-
a regulatory action is measured against the value of the parcel as a whole, see, e. g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSearch
-
based on that use restriction. Accordingly, the Court holds that petitioner's claim under Penn Central Transp. Co. v. NewSearch
-
Penn Central, supra, at 123-124 (quoting Armstrong v. UnitedSearch
-
Penn Central, supra, at 124 (quoting Goldblatt v. HempsteadSearch
-
see also Yee v. EscondidoSearch
-
a personal financial investment by a postenactment acquirer of property, such as a donee, heir, or devisee. Cf. Hodel v. IrvingSearch
-
Hawaii Housing Authority v. MidkiffSearch
-
Lucas v. SouthSearch
-
of its value as to be unconstitutional. Which is to say that a Penn Central taking, see Penn Central Transp. Co. v. NewSearch
-
requirement of the Takings Clause, see Hawaii Housing Authority v. MidkiffSearch
-
Chicago v. AtchisonSearch
-
person who owned the property at the time of the taking that is entitled to the recovery. See, e. g., Danforth v. UnitedSearch
-
the result of an arm's-length negotiation, an inheritance, or the dissolution of a bankrupt debtor. Cf. United States v. DowSearch
-
See Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSearch
-
Rivers v. RoadwaySearch
-
Clause issue if it (1) is generally applicable and (2) is directed at preventing a substantial public harm. Cf. Lucas v. SouthSearch
-
for fruit a trespasser spirited from the orchard before he acquired the property. The Court's holding in Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Council properly respected whatever limited rights he may have retained with regard to filling the wetlands. Cf. Lujan v. G &Search
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial