Title: 11-01pp.363
1. In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992; case involving a state’s denial of a permit
to construct houses on island lots) the Court held that _______.
2. In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987; case involving a family’s request for a
permit to replace the existing home on their beachfront property with a new home) the Court
concluded that the fact that the new home would obstruct the view of the ocean from the
roadway was not a sufficient reason for the state to condition the building permit on _______.
3. According to Berman v. Parker (1954; case involving urban renewal programs in Washington,
D.C.) and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984; Hawaii land reform case), a key factor in
determining whether the public use requirement has been violated is whether the government
program provides for the ownership of property taken from one private individual eventually to
be transferred to another private individual.
4. Which of the following statements about the applicability of the Takings Clause is true?
5. In Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York (1978) the Supreme Court held
that Penn Central suffered an economic loss when the city of New York denied the company
permission to build an office tower on the location of the Grand Central Terminal. Because that
denial was based on the city’s program of preserving historical buildings for the general public
good and also placed a severe economic hardship on Penn Central, it constituted a taking and the
city was required to provide Penn Central just compensation for its loss.
6. According to Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897), _______.
7. In what way did the Rehnquist Court indicate it would not fully expand the right to sue for an
improper taking?
8. What term refers to the government’s power to take private property for a public purpose?
9. What does the Court mean by “public use”?
10. How did the standard for public use change between Lucas and Kelo?
11. What constitutes a taking, according to United .States. v. Causby?
12. Is Kelo consistent with Berman and Midkiff? If so, why? If not, why not? Who has the more
convincing argument on this issue, Stevens or O’Connor? Why?
13. After Penn Central, 1987 was a turning point for the Court’s view of the takings clause.
Provide two examples of how this change manifested itself.
14. According to Midkiff, what must governments prove in order to take property?
15. Explain how the Rehnquist Court resurrected the Takings Clause from Nolan through Kelo.
How does Stevens’ majority used by Scalia, Kennedy, and Rehnquist square with the analysis
used by earlier Courts?
16. Explain the expansion and contraction of the Court’s Takings Clause jurisprudence from
Causby through Kelo. What are the major changes that took place in the Court’s focus and
reasoning during the second half of the twentieth century?
17. Within the city of Westphalia only one development of one hundred homes is left without
city water and sewers. In an effort to better the city, the mayor and council pass an ordinance that
all homes must be on city water and sewer systems within three years. According to
Westphalia’s laws, the city will pay for the construction, pipes, and connections on public
property. However, residents who are hooked up to the city water system must pay for
connection and installation once the pipes reach their property. The residents in the final
development do not want city water, as they live above an underground aquifer that provides
excellent well water. They also do not want to pay the estimated $5,000 to $7,500 that it will cost
per home to make the connections. To stop the new law, the residents file suit in federal court
claiming that forcing them to dig up their yards and add unwanted pipes and water to their
properties constitutes a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. If you were a justice
on the Supreme Court in 2005, how would you decide this case?