Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tahoe-Sierra_Preservation_Council,_Inc._v._Tahoe_Regional_Planning_Agency an entity of type: Thing
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), is one of the United States Supreme Court's more recent interpretations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.The case dealt with the question of whether a moratorium on construction of individual homes imposed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency fell under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and whether the landowners therefore should receive just compensation as required by that clause. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was represented by future Chief Justice John Roberts.Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, finding that the moratorium did not constitute a taking. It reasoned that there was an inherent difference between the acqui
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Incorporated, et al. v. Tahoe-Regional Planning Agency, et al.
xsd:integer
4500699
xsd:integer
1068423206
rdf:langString
Thomas
rdf:langString
Rehnquist
rdf:langString
Scalia
rdf:langString
Scalia, Thomas
rdf:langString
O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
302
xsd:integer
535
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-07
xsd:integer
2002
rdf:langString
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,
xsd:gMonthDay
--04-23
xsd:integer
2002
rdf:langString
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Incorporated, et al. v. Tahoe-Regional Planning Agency, et al.
rdf:langString
The moratorium did not constitute a taking. There was an inherent difference between the acquisition of property for public use and the regulation of property from private use. The moratorium at issue in this case should be classified as a regulation of property from private use and therefore no compensation is required.
rdf:langString
force
rdf:langString
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), is one of the United States Supreme Court's more recent interpretations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.The case dealt with the question of whether a moratorium on construction of individual homes imposed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency fell under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and whether the landowners therefore should receive just compensation as required by that clause. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was represented by future Chief Justice John Roberts.Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, finding that the moratorium did not constitute a taking. It reasoned that there was an inherent difference between the acquisition of property for public use and the regulation of property from private use. The majority concluded that the moratorium at issue in this case should be classified as a regulation of property from private use and therefore no compensation was required.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
9132