67 Pages Posted: 4 Nov 2013
Date Written: November 4, 2013
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.
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
Suggested Citation: 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: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2349760