categorical taking

categorical taking

A government regulation that deprives a property owner of all economically beneficial use of his or her property, and, as a result, constitutes a regulatory taking such as would justify requiring the government to pay the property owner for the loss.
References in periodicals archive ?
46) Suppose then that A owns a parcel of land at time t1, that the government regulates it to the point of a permanent wipeout at t2, and that B takes title from A at t3 and thereafter brings suit challenging the regulation as a categorical taking.
The first is a categorical taking, where the owner is deprived of all "beneficial or productive use of the land.
The District Court in TSPC also held that a categorical taking need
Co v New York City, 438 US 104, 57 L Ed 2d 631, 98 S Ct 2646 (1978), does not constitute a categorical taking.
DISAGREE = auditor-client disagreement reported in Form 8-K filing of auditor-client realignment (0,1: categorical taking on values of 1 if reported, 0 otherwise);
122) The Ninth Circuit noted that because the regulation was only temporary in nature, the moratoria only partially affected the petitioner's property interest, and thus did not meet the "total" deprivation of value required to constitute a categorical taking under Lucas.
The per se analysis, on the other hand, assumes that for certain types of property interests, governmental acquisition amounts to a categorical taking under any circumstance.
67) Of particular interest, the court found that this was not a "Lucas" categorical taking because, by definition, land subject to a moratorium can potentially be used in the future, after the moratorium is lifted.
Issue #1: Do Regulations that Effect a Temporary Deprivation of All Economically Beneficial Use of Land Constitute a Categorical Taking Under Lucas?
The court said government action that deprives property owners of all productive use of their property or physically invades property boundaries is often determined to be a per se or categorical taking.
Accordingly, where regulation does not effect a categorical taking, the courts should defer to the legislative judgment that regulation effects an average reciprocity of advantage.
Under the standard approach, categorical takings tests, under which plaintiffs have a relatively high likelihood of prevailing, apply to physical invasions and direct appropriations of property and to complete wipeouts of value, even if those wipeouts were caused solely by regulatory constraints.