Legal Opinion

Yee v. City of Escondido

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided April 1, 1992No. 90-1947PublishedCited by 915 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice O’Connor

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Most of our cases interpreting the Clause fall within two distinct classes. Where the government authorizes a physical occupation of property (or actually takes title), the Takings Clause generally requires compensation. See, e. g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 426 (1982). But where the government merely regulates the use of property, compensation *523is required only if considerations such as the purpose of the regulation or the…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Stone v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Carlson v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by915 opinions

  1. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  3. Mayhew v. Town of SunnyvaleTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Gray v. NetherlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

910 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API