PROPERTY RIGHTS CASES:
US Supreme Court Cases:
Kelo et al. v City of New London Case 04-108 (decided June 23, 2005) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-108
Summary:
This case involves a city condemning private property and transferring ownership to other private owners, one being the pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer. The Fifth Amendment provides that private property
may be taken through eminent domain only for "public use". The city of New London contends the taking complies with the public use requirement because it is part of an economic development plan that will
create jobs, and benefit the public, which serves a public purpose. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the city even though the land taken in this case will not be used by the public, but will be used by
it's new private owner.
Justice Clarance Thomas' dissent states in part: "I cannot agree. If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is...I would revisit our Public Use Clause cases and consider
returning to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause: that the government may take property only if it actually uses or gives the public a legal right to use the property."
Penn Central Transportation v City of New York
Case 5388 U.S. 104 (1978)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=438&invol=104
Summary:
This case largely destroyed property rights. The case involved a historical building preservation commission, which denied owners the right to construct a new building adjoining a historic building. Property owners sued and argued that this was a taking. The court ruled that only if the regulation destroys all reasonable use has a taking occurred.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc.etal v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency etal
Case #.00-1167 (4/23/2002)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-1167
Summary: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed a moratorium on all development in the Lake Tahoe Basin area for a period totaling 32 months while formulating a land use plan for the area. The Supreme Court decided this was not per se takings of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause. Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent "A taking is exactly what occurred in this case. These individuals and families were deprived of the opportunity to build single-family homes as permanent, retirement, or vacation residences on land upon which such construction was authorized when purchased. ... I would hold that regulations prohibiting all productive uses of property are subject to Lucas per se rule, regardless of whether the property so burdened retains theoretical useful life and value if, and when, the temporary moratorium is lifted. To my mind, such potential future value bears on the amount of compensation due and has nothing to do with the question whether there was a taking in the first place. It is regrettable that the Court has charted a markedly different path today."
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
Case # 99-2047 (6/28/2001)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-2047
Summary: A landowner may challenge state rules or regulations under the Takings Clause even if the enactment took place prior to transfer of title.
US Nollan v California Coastal Commission
Case #86-133 (6/26/1987)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=483&invol=825
Summary: The case examined the question of when a property owner can be required to dedicate part of their property to the public in order to obtain a development permit. The Court held that there must be a substantial connection between a public burden created by the project and the required dedication.
Dolan v City of Tigard
Case # 93-518 (6/24/1994)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10365
Summary: The Tigard City Planning Commission conditioned approval of the Dolan application to expand a store and pave the parking lot upon compliance with dedication of land for a public greenway and for a bicycle path. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires a "rough proportionality" relationship between the conditions and the impact of the development.
Texas Supreme Court Cases:
Takings:
Tarrant Regional Water District v. Gragg
Case #01-0362 (6/25/2004)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=tx&vol=/sc/010362&invol=1
Summary: The landowner was awarded damages caused by reservoir, which maintained a water level that was too high. This forced the water district to fully open the floodgates when there was heavy rainfall upstream. Land and cattle were destroyed.
Article by Edmond R. Mc Carthy, Jr.:
http://www.twca.org/downloads/graggimpact.pdf
Article By Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs: "Victory for the Little Guys"
http://www.agr.state.tx.us/agr/main_render/0,1968,1848_6719_6894_0,00.html?channelId=6719
Eminent Domain:
Westgate, Ltd., v. Sate of Texas and City of Austin Case #D-732 (12/2/1992)
Summary: Property owners may not recover damages caused by the announcement intention, and subsequent years of delay to acquire property by condemnation.
State v. Schmidt:
Case #867S.W. 2d 768 (1993)
Summary: The Texas Supreme Court ruled that damages to a remainder tract might not include changes in visibility of property and other results of roadway alterations.
Rule of Capture - Groundwater:
Sipriano v. Great Spring Waters of America, Inc.
Case # 98-0247 (05/06/1999)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/texasstatecases/sc/980247c.htm
Explanation of the Rule of Capture: Information obtained from an April 2004 groundwater conference in San Antonio. The Rule of Capture was established in 1904 by the Texas Supreme Court case, Houston & Texas Railway Co. v. East, 98 Tex. 146, 81 S.W. 279 (1904). Harry Grant Potter, III defined the Rule of Capture and explained that, "without willful waste, landowners have the right to take all the water they can capture under their land and do whatever they want with it, and they will not be liable to their neighboring landowners even if they deprive their neighbors of the water's use." The Rule of Capture also deprives Texas landowners of a legal remedy for the dewatering of their wells by their neighbors. Since its adoption 100 years ago, the rule of capture has been widely criticized, and today, Texas stands as the only western state that continues to follow it. C.E. Williams discussed the lack of science used in the Rule of Capture, "During the last century, groundwater was said to be 'mysterious and occult' because of the lack of knowledge about geology and hydrology of the aquifers. Today, science is much more advanced, and many resources are available for groundwater district boards to make informed management decisions."