Penn Central and Its Reluctant Muftis
Steven J. Eagle
George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty
November 4, 2013
Baylor Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2014, Forthcoming
George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 13-59
This Article explores the role of the Supreme Court’s Penn Central line of regula-tory takings cases, from the premise that the purpose of the Penn Central doctrine is to advance fundamental fairness in an era of pervasive land use regulation. In particular, the Article focuses on whether the doctrine inherently is self-defeating, since judges are reluctant to act as “grand muftis” of zoning and planning, and hence are driven towards the type of formulaic rules that the doctrine eschews.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 67
Keywords: mufti, condemnation, just compensation, investment-backed expectations, ripeness, substantive due process, errant language, public use, heightened scrutiny, Lingle, Palazzolo, Dolan, Koontz, Mahon, Lucas, Armstrong, Williamson County, Lochner, Olech, Arkansas Game and Fish, Agins, San Remo Hotel
JEL Classification: K11, R52, H77
Date posted: November 4, 2013
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 2.094 seconds