Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an ordinance regulating dredging and pit excavating was a valid exercise of police power wherein it prevented the defendant from further excavation below the water table
• holding that a regulation prohibiting excavations below groundwater level was not a taking because the regulation only limited some forms of development, but did not decrease market value
• finding that local government may prohibit soil excavation use in order to protect public welfare
• explaining that government regulation if onerous enough can constitute a taking, with there being “no set formula to determine where regulation ends and taking begins”
• explaining that to state a takings claim, a plaintiff must show that he was subject to regulations that prohibited him from all, or substantially all, of the beneficial use of his property
• upholding law effectively preventing continued operation of quarry in residential area against challenge that such was a taking without just compensation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).