State and federal government regulations are disciplined by property-owner coalitions whose "voice" is clearly audible in the statehouses and in Congress.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without paying the owner just compensation. Some owners allege that the gov't's. regulations have effectively taken their property -- by restructuring the ways in which they can use it -- & that they should be compensated. Chapters: regulatory takings: the status " increasing access to compensation; increasing access to fed. courts & encouraging settlements; augmenting requirements for agency takings analyses; paying compensation awards from agency budgets; estimating the cost of expanding eligibility for compensation. Charts & tables.

If legal scholar Richard Epstein is right, then the New Deal is wrong, if not unconstitutional. Epstein reaches this sweeping conclusion after making a detailed analysis of the eminent domain, or takings, clause of the Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. In contrast to the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the eminent domain clause has been interpreted narrowly. It has been invoked to force the government to compensate a citizen when his land is taken to build a post office, but not when its value is diminished by a comprehensive zoning ordinance. Epstein argues that this narrow interpretation is inconsistent with the language of the takings clause and the political theory that animates it. He develops a coherent normative theory that permits us to distinguish between permissible takings for public use and impermissible ones. He then examines a wide range of government regulations and taxes under a single comprehensive theory. He asks four questions: What constitutes a taking of private property? When is that taking justified without compensation under the police power? When is a taking for public use? And when is a taking compensated, in cash or in kind? Zoning, rent control, progressive and special taxes, workers’ compensation, and bankruptcy are only a few of the programs analyzed within this framework. Epstein’s theory casts doubt upon the established view today that the redistribution of wealth is a proper function of government. Throughout the book he uses recent developments in law and economics and the theory of collective choice to find in the eminent domain clause a theory of political obligation that he claims is superior to any of its modern rivals.

As challenges to land use and environmental controls by landowners and the property-rights movement have become more frequent, the concept of "takings" -- government action that excessively limits a property-owner's use of private land -- has become both increasingly familiar to the public, and increasingly problematic for planners, local officials, and anyone involved with making day-to-day decisions about land use. A vast and diverse body of case law has come into existence over the past several decades, and the controversy generated by recent legal decisions has resulted in a significant level of ideological bias in much of what has been written on the topic.This volume is an objective and authoritative examination that considers all aspects of the takings issue. It is a much-needed guide and overview that introduces and explains issues surrounding regulatory takings on the local, state, and federal level for anyone involved with private land and government limitation of its permissible use. The authors describe where the law is now, predict where it might go in the future, and review conflict-reducing solutions to a variety of situations. They condense an immense amount of information into a clear and accesible format, making the book equally valuable for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.The Takings Issue addresses procedural hurdles involved in getting a takings issue heard by a court, examines what does and does not constitute a taking, and considers the remedies available to landowners involved in takings actions. It treats concerns such as zoning, dedications and exactions, subdivision platting, and other local issues in some detail, and also considers state and federal issues involving industrial site approval, endangered species and wetlands protection, restrictions on access to resources on federal lands, and other topics.The book is an essential reference for planners, land use lawyers, developers, and students of planning and law, as well as for policymakers and citizens involved with takings issues.

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.

The proper construction of the compensation clause of the Constitution has emerged as the central legal issue of the environmental revolution, as property owners have challenged a steady stream of environmental statutes that have cut deeply into traditional notions of property rights. When may they justly demand that the state compensate them for the sacrifices they are called upon to make for the common good? Ackerman argues that there is more at stake in the present wave of litigation than even the future shape of environmental law in the United States. To frame an adequate response, lawyers must come to terms with an analytic conflict that implicates the nature of modern legal thought itself. Ackerman expresses this conflict in terms of two opposed ideal types---Scientific Policymaking and Ordinary Observing---and sketches the very different way in which these competing approaches understand the compensation question. He also tries to demonstrate that the confusion of current compensation doctrine is a product of the legal profession's failure to choose between these two modes of legal analysis.He concludes by exploring the large implications of such a choice---relating the conflict between Scientific Policymaking and Ordinary Observing to fundamental issues in economic analysis, political theory, metaethics, and the philosophy of language.