CASES

Question 1

Describe Lake Michigan Fed v. US (1990)

Answer 1

Lake Michigan Federation sued Loyola University and the Army Corps of Engineers to prevent Loyola from filling in part of Lake Michigan to construct a campus expansion. Court granted relief on grounds that state lege had transferred submerged lakebed in violation of Public Trust Doctrine.

Question 2

Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823)

Answer 2

Dispute over land; Court rules that dispute is invalid because the land sale was invalid because natives can only sell to the US government, not to individuals. Thus, Doctrine of Discovery means that tribes cannot convey title to private individuals, only to the US government.

Question 3

US v Washington (1970s)

Answer 3

PNW treaties should be interpreted according to understanding of the tribes at the time as gauranteeing right to fish and to take a portion of the salmon harvest each year to sustain themselves

Question 4

Illinois Central RR v. Illinoios (1892)

Answer 4

Reaffirmed PTD and held that state legislatures could not grant submerged lands to private parties

Question 5

Juliana v. US (9th Cir)

Answer 5

Failed attempt to use PTD to establish right to functioning climate system and breathable air

Question 6

Matthews v Bayhead Improvement Association (NJ 1984)

Answer 6

HOA sought to restrict access to a beach to members only; Court held that PTD requires public access through privately owned land to the public dry sand areas as reasonably necessary. HOA must open membership to public.

Question 7

Stevens v City of Cannon Beach

Answer 7

Oregon - Doctrine of Custom establishes public ownership of beaches

Question 8

Pierson v Post

Answer 8

Rule of Capture - wildlife exists in public trust before it is captured. Capture is required to own it; pursuing does not grant ownership, mortal wounding does.

Question 9

Miller v Schoene

Answer 9

Virginia Red Cedar takings case. Court held that owner was not owed compensation for trees that were cut down to protect economically important apple orchards from pests

Question 10

Penn Central v NYC (1978)

Answer 10

Penn sued for damages equal to its ‘reasonable return’ on investment which it lost due to city denying permit to build office building on its historic landmark train station. Court held that since the RR could still use the building as a train station, they did not get extra compensation for the ‘loss’ of the potential office building.

Question 11

Esplanade Properties v Seattle

Answer 11

Lucas exception case regarding building on tidelands – the regulation is a taking which nullifies all economically beneficial use, but the landowner doesn’t get compensation anyway because they were improperly granted public land in violation of PTD

Question 12

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Answer 12

“Hybrid Takings” case. There must be an ‘essential nexus’ between landowners harmful activity and the property taken

Question 13

Dolan v City of Tigard

Answer 13

In addition to ‘essential nexus’ from Nollan, there must also be ‘rough proportionality’ between the governmental exaction and the projected harm of the landowners proposed activity

Question 14

Sierra Tahoe Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Answer 14

Temporary Taking – court grants compensation for a regulatory/physical/hybrid taking even though it is not permanent. Penn Central applies to temporary takings. Repudiates partial takings analysis.

Question 15

Koontz v St Johns

Question 16

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)

Answer 16

Intro of regulatory takings doctrine! Whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property