Government Takings under Property Law
Government Takings under Property Law
Government Takings (also called eminent domain in some contexts) refer to situations where the government acquires private property for public use. This acquisition can be either by outright purchase, appropriation, or regulation that effectively deprives the owner of use or possession of the property.
Key Concepts of Government Takings
Public Purpose / Use
The government can take private property only for a purpose that benefits the public, such as building roads, schools, or other infrastructure.
Compensation
When the government takes private property, the owner is generally entitled to receive compensation, often called "just compensation," for the loss of the property.
Types of Takings
Physical Taking: When the government physically occupies or appropriates property.
Regulatory Taking: When a government regulation limits the use of property so much that it effectively deprives the owner of its use or value.
Elements to Consider in Government Takings
Has a taking occurred?
Did the government physically appropriate or restrict property use to such an extent that it amounts to a taking?
Is the taking for public use?
The taking must be for a legitimate public purpose.
Is compensation required?
Owners must be compensated if their property is taken.
Case Law Examples
1. Physical Taking – Kaiser Aetna v. United States (1979)
In this case, the government allowed the construction of a dam that flooded a marina owned by a private party, substantially impairing the owner’s property rights. The court held that this flooding amounted to a physical taking because the government’s action directly interfered with the property.
Key takeaway: Physical occupation or appropriation by the government can be a taking, requiring compensation.
2. Public Use – Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)
This case involved the government redistributing land from a few landowners to reduce concentrated ownership for public benefit. The court confirmed that a taking for a public purpose, such as correcting social or economic conditions, qualifies as a valid taking.
Key takeaway: The government’s takings must serve a public purpose, not merely private interests.
3. Regulatory Taking – Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)
Here, a law prohibited mining that would cause subsidence damage to surface structures. The court ruled that regulations can go “too far” and constitute a taking when they deprive an owner of all or most of the property's value, thus requiring compensation.
Key takeaway: Excessive government regulation limiting property use can amount to a taking.
4. Compensation Requirement – First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County (1987)
The court held that when a regulation takes property, the government must compensate the owner for the period during which the property was unusable due to the regulation.
Key takeaway: Compensation is required not only for physical takings but also for regulatory takings that deny the owner’s use.
Summary
Government Takings under property law allow the state to acquire private property for public use but require that owners receive fair compensation. Takings can be physical (direct appropriation) or regulatory (restrictions that deprive use or value). The government’s action must serve a public purpose, and owners must be compensated for the loss or diminished use of their property. Case law like Kaiser Aetna, Midkiff, Mahon, and First English clarify these principles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments