Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Hadacheck v. Sebastian

7 Pages Posted: 25 Jan 2008 Last revised: 19 Feb 2008

D. Benjamin Barros

University of Toledo - College of Law


This short encyclopedia entry discusses Hadacheck v. Sebastian and its relevance to contemporary regulatory takings jurisprudence. The entry describes the Hadacheck litigation and the treatment of Hadacheck in the Supreme Court's more recent regulatory takings cases. It notes four reasons why caution should be used before applying Hadacheck to contemporary regulatory takings issues: (1) the case is ambiguous about the diminution in value actually suffered by the plaintiff; (2) Hadacheck was decided before Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, which arguably marked a shift in regulatory takings law; (3) the Court's holding in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council that a total diminution in value is a per se taking undercuts one possible reading of Hadacheck; and (4) that the Court's recent decision in Lingle v. Chevron suggests that the substantive due process analysis in early cases like Hadacheck should not be a part of the regulatory takings analysis.

Keywords: takings, just compensation, hadacheck, mahon, lucas, penn central

JEL Classification: K11

Suggested Citation

Barros, D. Benjamin, Hadacheck v. Sebastian. Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-08. Available at SSRN: or

D. Benjamin Barros (Contact Author)

University of Toledo - College of Law ( email )

2801 W. Bancroft Street
Toledo, OH 43606
United States

Paper statistics

Abstract Views