|
|
Article: At last, some clarity: the potential long-term impact of Lingle v. Chevron and the separation of takings and substantive due process.
- Article from:
- Albany Law Review
- Article date:
- December 22, 2005
- Author:
CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 2005 Albany Law School. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)
|
I. INTRODUCTION
Regulatory takings often is considered one of the most doctrinally confused areas of constitutional law. Bucking its general habit of adding to this confusion with every takings case that it hears, the Supreme Court recently provided some clarity to takings doctrine in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (1) Indeed, this clarity has the potential to make Lingle far more significant than Kelo v. City of New London, (2) which has dominated the commentary about the Court's recent takings decisions. (3) This clarity may also have the counterintuitive effect of helping property rights advocates more than the short-term defeat in Lingle hurt them. (4)
Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles:
|
|
Article: Substantive Due Process
West's Encyclopedia of American Law;
700+ words
...SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS The substantive limitations placed ... matter of state and federal laws by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth ... Constitution. In general, substantive due process prohibits the government from infringing ...
|
|