 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Lucas v. South Carolina: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
However, when the regulation altogether destroys the property's economic value to its owner, the [[Penn Central Transportation v. New York City|Penn Central]] standard doesn't apply. Consequently, these regulations are almost always a ''taking''. | However, when the regulation altogether destroys the property's economic value to its owner, the [[Penn Central Transportation v. New York City|Penn Central]] standard doesn't apply. Consequently, these regulations are almost always a ''taking''. | ||
|judgment=Reversed | |judgment=Reversed | ||
|rule=Regulatory taking | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/lucas-v-south-carolina-coastal-council | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/lucas-v-south-carolina-coastal-council | ||
Latest revision as of 16:19, April 3, 2024
| Lucas v. South Carolina | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | 505 U.S. 1003 |
| Date decided | June 29, 1992 |
| Appealed from | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Cited | Penn Central Transportation v. New York City |
Facts
- Lucas purchased 2 un-developed beachfront parcels of land in South Carolina.
- Lucas wanted to build a single-family house on each parcel.
- Before the construction could commence, the state of South Carolina banned residential development on the parcels.
Procedural History
- Lucas sued the South Carolina Coastal Council.
- Lucas won: the trial court awarded compensation to Lucas.
- Lucas lost in the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Issues
When a land-use regulation completely destroys the land's economic value, is it a taking requiring just compensation?
Arguments
- Lucas argued that the ban on residential development by the beach was a regulatory taking requiring "just compensation."
Holding
Antonin Scalia: Yes. A land-use regulation that destroys the land's economic value is a taking...unless the prohibited use could've have enjoined under state nuisance law.
However, when the regulation altogether destroys the property's economic value to its owner, the Penn Central standard doesn't apply. Consequently, these regulations are almost always a taking.Judgment
Reversed
Rule
Regulatory taking
Resources
