Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2349760
 


 



Penn Central and Its Reluctant Muftis


Steven J. Eagle


George Mason University School of Law

November 4, 2013

Baylor Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2014, Forthcoming
George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 13-59

Abstract:     
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

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: November 4, 2013  

Suggested Citation

Eagle, Steven J., Penn Central and Its Reluctant Muftis (November 4, 2013). Baylor Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2014, Forthcoming; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 13-59. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2349760

Contact Information

Steven J. Eagle (Contact Author)
George Mason University School of Law ( email )
3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 138
Downloads: 27

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.281 seconds