Key Cases

Question 1

Johnson v. M’intosh

Answer 1

Superior Title Issue
Tribes cannot sell land (only had right to occupancy) via Discovery Doctrine

Question 2

US v. Washington

Answer 2

Tribe rights issue
Retained right to fish = right to harvest (interpreted loosely to benefit tribe)

Question 3

Illinois v. Central

Answer 3

PT case
Shoreline of Illinois was in PT
Retroactively invalidated private sale with railroad

Question 4

Lake Michigan Fed. v. US

Answer 4

PT case
Test: private benefit vs Public benefit
Loyola cannot build on lake as mostly private benefit

Question 5

Juliana v. US

Answer 5

PT: includes Atmosphere

Question 6

Mathews v. Bayhead

Answer 6

PT = upshore sand area
4 factor test
1. Ease of access to PT land
2. Amount of upshore sand in the PT
3. Extent of public demand
4. Interference with Private Owners use of the land

Question 7

Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach

Answer 7

Doctrine of Customs: customary use means public should be continued to use via Implied dedication

Question 8

Pierson v. Post

Answer 8

Foxes!
Possession is 9/10ths of the law

Question 9

State v. Shack

Answer 9

The right to exclude is not absolute.
Defenses to trespass include
1. Consent from the owner
2. Necessity
3. Public Policy

Question 10

Shelley v. Kramer

Answer 10

CCRs for racially restrictive covenants not unconstitutional
(although fair house act fixes this)
Found state action violated the 14th amendment

Question 11

Miller v. Schoen

Answer 11

Phys. Taking =/= Compensation via Necessity to cut down trees (also possible under nuisance or public servitude)

Question 12

Kelo v. City of New London (Stevens Majority)

Answer 12

Public use = public purpose

Question 13

Kelo (O’Connor)

Answer 13

Physical takings should only be done to prevent blight

Question 14

Kelo (Thomas)

Answer 14

Takings must require the public “use” the land

Question 15

Kelo (Kennedy)

Answer 15

Takings are bad. If it looks like a physical taking is primarily for private benefit, it should be investigated and possibly stopped

Question 16

Penn Central v. NY

Answer 16

Regulatory Taking
Created Penn test for compensation (factors)
1. Economic impact of owner
2. Reasonable, investment-backed expectations
3. Character of the governmental regulation
(harm = no comp, benefit = comp)

Question 17

Lucas v. South Carolina

Answer 17

Regulatory Taking
Exception to Penn Central for total economic deprivation
Has exceptions (including nuisance and public trust)

Question 18

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

Answer 18

When applying Lucas, must look at the whole parcel
Also, no bar against post-enactment purchasers bringing taking claims

Question 19

Just v. Marinette County

Answer 19

Another Lucas exception
The Natural Use Rule: Landowner cannot use land in a way against the natural character NOR in any way that interferes with neighbors use of the their land

Question 20

Esplanade v. Seattle

Answer 20

Another Lucas exception
PT does not confer the right to build in the bundle of sticks when tidelands were bought, thus no total economic deprivation

Question 21

Nollan v. California Costal Division

Answer 21

Hybrid Takings Case
There ust be a Nexus between the purpose of the regulation and the exaction

Question 22

Dolan v. City og Tigard

Answer 22

Hybrid Takings Case, other half of Nollan
Must have rough proportionality (fairish trade)

Question 23

Koontz v. St. John

Answer 23

Hybrid Takings Case
$$$ can serve as exaction if it relates to the regulation in question, however general taxation does not suffice

Question 24

Sierra Tahoe v. Regional Planning

Answer 24

Temporary actions (physical, regulatory, hybrid) can still be takings. Here, temporary regulation required application of the Penn Central test