The trial court agreed but its decision was reversed on appeal. Penn Central contended that under the New York Historical Preservation Law, it was entitled to derive a net income from Grand Central Terminal, but the city's regulation had forced it into an indefinite deficit condition. In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal. The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. The Holmes opinion is considered one of the most important opinions in the history of takings law. Over a dissent by Justice Brandeis, the court ruled that Pennsylvania's statute deprived the coal companies of the right to mine their coal.
The coal company essentially owned a property right to mine as much as it wished. The deed provided that the grantee takes the premises with that risk and waives all claim for damages that may arise from mining out the coal. The state and the surface landowners argued that the right to cause surface collapse was not property. The owner's deed conveyed the surface but in express terms reserved the right to remove all the coal. The coal companies argued in Pennsylvania Coal that they had acquired a right to mine the coal and the right to allow the surface to collapse because these rights had been purchased from the original landowners. Under Pennsylvania law, the deed also conveyed the right to surface support to the coal company which could thus remove subsurface coal even if that caused subsidence. Mahon involved an action by an individual landowner who sought to prevent a mining operation from violating this law, undermining his or her home. For this reason, the Pennsylvania legislature acted to limit the amount of material that could be removed from the mines below in order to leave sufficient underground support below. The early mining operations often removed so much of the underground coal that the mines became a hazard to the miners underground and to those residing on the surface. The Court held this law to be a taking of the coal owned by the Pennsylvania Coal Company. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority of the court, stated that "he general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." Before the court, was a Pennsylvanian law that forbade all mining under inhabited land. Mahon that governmental regulations that went "too far" were a taking. In 1922, the Supreme Court held in Pennsylvania Coal Co. Supreme Court jurisprudence Pennsylvania Coal It is characterized as a disorganized test. Courts are to consider the economic impact of the governmental regulation, the extent to which the regulation interferes with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action. Modern jurisprudence to determine whether a regulatory taking has occurred centers around the ad hoc factor-based test that the Supreme Court of the United States laid out in Penn Central Transp. Mahon (1922) which stated that: "The general rule, at least, is that, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking for which compensation must be paid." Regulatory takings jurisprudence has its roots in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion in Pennsylvania Coal v. The amendment is incorporated to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution governments are required to pay just compensation for such takings.
In United States constitutional law, a regulatory taking occurs when governmental regulations limit the use of private property to such a degree that the landowner is effectively deprived of all economically reasonable use or value of their property. ( January 2009) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message) Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.
0 kommentar(er)
