Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
Forced Entry Exaction
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)
The city of Tigard required Dolan to dedicate a portion of her property to the city as a bike path. Dolan was required to to convey an easement to the city allowing it and the public access to her land. Dolan objected, claiming that these requirements constituted an uncompensated taking. The Court held that under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, a government agency may not require a landowner to surrender his land in exchange for discretionary benefits, where the property sought has little to no relationship to the benefit conferred.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commissioner, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)
Nollan wanted to rebuild an existing bungalow on his beachfront property. As a prerequisite, the California Coastal Commissioner required him to dedicate a lateral strip of his land to the public, which had to be recorded on the chain of title. The Commissioner claimed that the easement was furthering a legitimate public interest. The Court held that there must be an "essential nexus" between withholding the permit and the public interest.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)
In 1986, Lucas purchased a beach front property in a residential area. In 1988, the enactment of the Beachfront Act barred Lucas from erecting any habital structure. The court ruled that the total destruction of all economically viable use is considered a taking.
Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
New London,Connecticut used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell a private developer trying to redevelop the neighborhood. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Susette Kelo and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Several property owners refused to sell to the city, including Susette Kelo, and condemnation proceedings were started by New London Development Corporation. The Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fifth Amendment a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future use by the public is the purpose of the taking.
Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984)
In the 1960s, the Hawaii Legislature discovered that, while the state and federal governments owned almost forty-nine percent of the state’s land, another forty-seven percent was owned by only seventy-two private landowners. The Hawaiian Legislature passed the Land Reform Act of 1967 and attempted to use its eminent domain powers to seize land from these seventy-two private landowner and redistribute it more evenly among the general population. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Hawaii Act is constitutional because it was rationally related to a public purpose and was a compensated taking.
Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875)
The government used its eminent domain power to seize private property for the construction of a post office and other government buildings. The Court held that the government can seize private property for its own purposes to advance a legitimate public purpose, such as creating infrastructure.
Berman v. Parker 348 U.S. 26 (1954)
The U.S. Supreme Court examined the government's eminent domain power under the Fifth Amendment. The Court ruled that the government can take property from one private entity as part of a redevelopment plan that serves a public purpose, but not without just compensation to the property owner.
Permanent Physical Invasion
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. 458 U.S. 419 (1982)
In 1973, New York passed a law that authorized a cable company to permanently install wires on the property of the landowner. The owner was not allowed to interfere with the installation, nor demand money from the tenants. The Court held that a permanent occupation by the government is a taking construed within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States
Podcast via Lexis Courtroom*