FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1517626020> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1517626020 startingPage "1143" @default.
• W1517626020 abstract "Regulatory are widely regarded as a Whether from the standpoint of merely trying to describe judicial doctrine, or from the more ambitious standpoint of trying to normalize the doctrine in some way--finding the theory that can rationalize the cases, or the theory that should--the opening cliche in most of the scholarly commentary is that the law in this area is a bewildering mess. We can go back thirty years, more-or-less, and find statements to that effect in classic articles by Joe Sax and Frank Michelman.(1) We can skip forward to recent work and observe the same.(2) We can also take it on faith (trust me) that most of the scholarly literature in between shares the sentiment.(3) My aim here is to unpack the regulatory problem in a way that suggests why it is intractable. idea is to reveal some of the different types of ambiguity necessarily entailed in cases. Seeing these ambiguities, we readily can understand why the doctrine in this area is so confused and confusing; why there is, in short, a takings puzzle. To my mind, it is much more difficult to understand why anyone would expect matters to be otherwise. This oddity I call the takings-puzzle puzzle. It seems to me that cases routinely give rise to at least three different kinds, and different levels, of ambiguity and uncertainty. first and most superficial kind was suggested in an article by Douglas Kmiec.(4) Professor Kmiec claimed that the Supreme Court, thanks to several of its recent decisions, largely has solved the puzzle.(5) He didn't mean by this that all of the uncertainties about regulatory doctrine have suddenly vanished; what he meant, instead, is that the Court has, in his view, settled on general principles. Kmiec acknowledged, however, that the uncertainty of applying those principles remains intact. The puzzle has been solved, he said, but especific applications always will remain contentious.(6) I don't believe that the puzzle has been solved in the sense that Kmiec meant, but put that aside. point remains that even very clearly settled principles commonly will give rise to uncertainty, and thus to some degree of unpredictability, about how to apply the principles. For example, standard doctrine plainly holds that government regulations resulting in permanent physical occupations are always takings.(7) But when is an occupation permanent? Indeed, when does a government regulation even work an occupation or invasion that is cognizable for purposes? answers to these questions are not at all obvious, so the questions themselves present something of a puzzle.(8) To cite another example of the same problem, it is clear that government regulations are if they effectively wipe out the value of regulated land, unless the land uses targeted by the regulations amount to nuisances under the terms of a state's common law.(9) As Kmiec noted, however, [n]uisance law is imprecise,(10) so substantial uncertainty arises even in the course of applying settled doctrine. We need not belabor the obvious. Takings doctrine simply cannot escape this first kind of uncertainty and confusion that I have been discussing, even when principles are settled and clear. Consider now a second kind and level of ambiguity and uncertainty, one having to do with arguments about what our general principles of law in this area should be. Here, uncertainties arise that are more fundamental than those found in the first kind of ambiguity that I identified, more fundamental in the sense that one initially needs to settle on the frame within which to ponder the more mundane issues of applying the general to the particular. Carol Rose has discussed this problem in the context of regulatory takings: In doctrine, the tradition of property's civic responsibility is embodied in a test that balances public benefits against private losses from a particular measure. …" @default.
• W1517626020 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1517626020 creator A5019649764 @default.
• W1517626020 date "1997-03-01" @default.
• W1517626020 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1517626020 title "The Takings-Puzzle Puzzle" @default.
• W1517626020 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W1517626020 type Work @default.
• W1517626020 sameAs 1517626020 @default.
• W1517626020 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1517626020 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1517626020 hasAuthorship W1517626020A5019649764 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C2778184401 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C2778692574 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C2780522230 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C111472728 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C138885662 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C144024400 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C17744445 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C190253527 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C199539241 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C2776211767 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C2778184401 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C2778272461 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C2778692574 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C2780522230 @default.
• W1517626020 hasConceptScore W1517626020C41895202 @default.
• W1517626020 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1517626020 hasLocation W15176260201 @default.
• W1517626020 hasOpenAccess W1517626020 @default.
• W1517626020 hasPrimaryLocation W15176260201 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W1488670038 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W1573234990 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W1604664147 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W164561082 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W2227265678 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W2262856126 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W2317787259 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W2413362769 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W2472214567 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W30231803 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W3036890132 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W3122066534 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W3122664204 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W3125436387 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W326457160 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W45395194 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W756372061 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W1857577145 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W208385589 @default.
• W1517626020 hasRelatedWork W3122838743 @default.
• W1517626020 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W1517626020 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1517626020 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1517626020 magId "1517626020" @default.
• W1517626020 workType "article" @default.