Loretto v teleprompter software#

Held: California’s access regulation constitutes a per se physical taking. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and rehearing en banc was denied over dissent. The District Court denied the growers’ motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint, holding that the access regulation did not constitute a per se physical taking because it did not allow the public to access the growers’ property in a permanent and continuous manner. The growers filed suit in Federal District Court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the access regulation on the grounds that it appropriated without compensation an easement for union organizers to enter their property and therefore constituted an unconstitutional per se physical taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Organizers from the United Farm Workers sought to take access to property owned by two California growers-Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company. The regulation mandates that agricultural employers allow union organizers onto their property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year. 20–107. Argued March 22, 2021-Decided June 23, 2021Ī California regulation grants labor organizations a “right to take access” to an agricultural employer’s property in order to solicit support for unionization. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Florida Supreme Court, and held that it had not caused a “judicial taking.” The state was the owner of previously submerged land, even if that land came between a beachfront land owner and the water.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2010) Read More.Ī property owner who acquired title to a property after it was already subject to wetlands regulations could bring a takings claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Loretto v teleprompter software#

Read More.Ĭompanies that produce file-sharing software could be held liable for copyright infringements resulting from the use of that software. The Court held that if the transfer of property was for “public benefit,” it satisfied the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement. Read More.Ĭities could take private property in order to turn it over to private developers, if the new development would result in greater revenue and benefits to the city. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)Ī temporary moratorium on new development did not constitute a partial taking of landowners’ property, and property owners were not entitled to compensation. Read More.Ĭities could not require property owners to give up parts of their land for public use in order to receive permits to develop that land (in cases where the city’s demands had no connection with the development intended by the owner). The owner of a beachfront property had to be compensated after a state law stopped all new construction on his property, because the law totally eliminated the land’s economic value. California Coastal Commission (1987)Ĭalifornia could not require beachfront property owners seeking building permits to maintain a public walkway on their property as a condition of being granted a building permit. The Court found that partial takings had to be compensated for since the access was a physical invasion of the property. Read More.Ī New York law granted a cable company permanent access to parts of private apartment buildings. The owner of a taken tugboat was not entitled to the market value at the time of the taking (during World War II) since the government’s need for the boat in the war inflated its price. The Court found a taking when low-flying jets at an airbase made farming impossible on nearby land even though the government never actually claimed the land itself. What are our rights when it comes to Private Property? Explore how the Supreme Court has decided on the issue by examining these landmark cases.