{"title":"过去和未来的宾州中央考试","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":"{\"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}","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}
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).