Cornelius Milan Harper v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Lucas categorical rule “would not apply if the diminution in value were 95% instead of 100%”
• holding that the property owners’ facial takings claim should have been brought under Penn Central
• holding that temporary ban on 15 property development for 32 months did not constitute per se taking under Lucas
• holding that determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred is not best served by categorical rules but rather “requires careful examination and weighing of all the relevant circumstances”
• holding that the deprivation of economic value required for a facial takings claim is limited to the extraordinary circumstance when no productive or economically beneficial use of the land is permitted
• emphasizing that “neither a physical appropriation nor a public use has ever been a necessary component of a regulatory taking”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).