The Once and Future Penn Central Test

J. Echeverria
{"title":"The Once and Future Penn Central Test","authors":"J. Echeverria","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ten years ago, in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the Supreme Court announced a new “categorical” test for regulatory takings, a step that logically implied that there must also be a “noncategorical” takings test (based, most presumed, on the Court's 1978 decision in Penn Central). Thus ensued a frantic effort among academics and takings practitioners to make sense of (or debunk) this two-tier analysis, an effort to which I contributed in the pages of this journal with an article entitled “Is the Penn Central Three Factor Test Ready for History's Dustbin?” (Vol. 52, No. 1).","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394774","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Ten years ago, in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the Supreme Court announced a new “categorical” test for regulatory takings, a step that logically implied that there must also be a “noncategorical” takings test (based, most presumed, on the Court's 1978 decision in Penn Central). Thus ensued a frantic effort among academics and takings practitioners to make sense of (or debunk) this two-tier analysis, an effort to which I contributed in the pages of this journal with an article entitled “Is the Penn Central Three Factor Test Ready for History's Dustbin?” (Vol. 52, No. 1).
过去和未来的宾州中央考试
十年前,在卢卡斯诉南卡罗来纳海岸委员会一案中,最高法院宣布了一项新的“绝对”征收标准,这一步骤在逻辑上暗示还必须有一项“非绝对”征收标准(大部分推定是基于法院1978年在宾夕法尼亚中央法院的判决)。因此,学者和从业人员疯狂地努力理解(或揭穿)这种双层分析,我在本刊上发表了一篇题为“宾夕法尼亚大学中心三因素测试准备好进入历史的垃圾箱了吗?”(第52卷,第1号)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信