TITLE

Due Process Land Use Claims After Lingle

AUTHOR(S)
Byrne, J. Peter
PUB. DATE
May 2007
SOURCE
Ecology Law Quarterly;2007, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p471
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. that challenges to the validity of land use regulations for failing to advance governmental interests must be brought under the Due Process Clause, rather than the Takings clause, and must be evaluated under a deferential standard. This Article analyzes and evaluates the probable course of such judicial review, and concludes that federal courts will resist due process review of land use decisions for good reasons but not always with an adequate doctrinal explanation. However, state courts can use due process review to provide state level supervision of local land use decisions in the absence of other legislative or administrative checks on local discretion. Such judicial review should focus on decisions reflecting distortions in the local political process.
ACCESSION #
27393092

 

Related Articles

  • ENDS AND MEANS IN TAKINGS LAW AFTER LINGLE V. CHEVRON. Romero, Alan // Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law;Spring2008, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p333 

    The article focuses on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. case. The author stated that the Court's decision that the substantial advancement tests must not be applied as a freestanding takings test is right, however its rejection of an independent taking test...

  • AT LAST, SOME CLARITY: THE POTENTIAL LONG-TERM IMPACT OF LINGLE V. CHEVRON AND THE SEPARATION OF TAKINGS AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. Barros, D. Benjamin // Albany Law Review;2005, Vol. 69 Issue 1, p343 

    Explores regulatory takings doctrine based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Discussion on the test needed to prove violation of the Just Compensation Clause of the U.S. Constitution; Argument that cases that look like regulatory takings issues were in fact...

  • LINGLE V. CHEVRON USA, INC. Nelson, Sarah B. // Harvard Environmental Law Review;2006, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p281 

    Argues that the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc. can protect all kinds of environmental regulations from judicial overreaching. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor elucidated takings inquiries by separating two questions: first, whether the case...

  • Property Tests, Due Process Tests and Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence. Eagle, Steven J. // Brigham Young University Law Review;2007, Vol. 2007 Issue 4, p899 

    The United States Supreme Court recently clarified in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. that its often-expressed "substantially advance" formulation sounds in due process, and thus should be rejected as an appropriate takings test. The Court also explained that due process provides an independent...

  • THE PROBLEM OF EQUALITY IN TAKINGS. Davidson, Nestor M. // Northwestern University Law Review;Winter2008, Vol. 102 Issue 1, p1 

    The article considers the emerging equality dimensions both under the Takings Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The author argue that the use of the Takings Clause as framework to subject regulations to review under the Lochner ruling has long posed an anomaly in...

  • Escaping the Takings Maze: Impact Fees and the Limits of the Takings Clause. Switzer, Charles Thompson // Vanderbilt Law Review;May2009, Vol. 62 Issue 4, p1315 

    The article presents an analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court takings jurisprudence in the case of Lingle v. Chevron USA Inc. It explores the case history of impact fees as a subset of regulatory takings, and examines the relationship between impact fees and the Takings Clause. It notes that the...

  • Recent Developments in Land Use, Planning and Zoning Law Exactions Update: The State of Development Exactions After Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Curtin, Daniel J.; Curtin Jr., Daniel J.; Gowder Jr., W. Andrew; Wenter, Bryan W. // Urban Lawyer;Summer2006, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p641 

    The article discusses legislative exactions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court takings case Lingle v. Chevron. The Lingle case decision overturned a 25-year-old takings precedent and, in doing so, clarified the landscape of takings law, the development of which had been criticized by legal...

  • Just a Flesh Wound? The Impact of Lingle v. Chevron on Regulatory Takings Law. Radford, R. S. // Urban Lawyer;Summer2006, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p437 

    The article focuses on the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court case Lingle v. Chevron on the country's regulatory takings law. The decision on the case repudiated a test of the constitutionality of land use regulations under the Takings Clause. The origin and importance of the substantial...

  • Indigestion from Eating Crow1: The Impact of Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. on the Future of Regulatory Takings Doctrine. Jacobs, Daniel A. // Urban Lawyer;Summer2006, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p451 

    The article focuses on the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court case Lingle v. Chevron on the future of regulatory takings doctrine. The majority opinion in the case makes a mea culpa and declares the Supreme Court's or the Justice's own previous application of constitutional law within a case or...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics