Abstract
Abstract The Supreme Court tells us, as a matter of law, that a moratorium is not a taking per se, not even when it extends over a period of several years, allows the affected land owners no economically rational land use, and leaves them only with their obligation to pay property taxes and make mortgage payments. I, a barefoot country lawyer, find this quite confusing because in 1987, in the First English case, the court held quite the opposite, that a denial of viable economic use of land for a similarly long period of time can be a taking per se requiring payment of just compensation. And so, since my meager intellectual resources are probably unequal to the task of plumbing this mystery, I leave to my colleagues the task of parsing Justice Stevens's reasoning in the Tahoe-Sierra case. For the moment I have had my fill of scrutinizing this intellectual shell game, though I have been known to indulge in such activity (Gideon Kanner, Hunting the Snark, Not the Quark: Has the U.S. Supreme Court Been Compe...
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
