Pelham v. Oakey

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing Hodel from the regulatory takings that were alleged to have occurred as a result of the enactment of the Preservation Statutes
• citing, e.g. Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1, 7, 69 S.Ct. 1434, 93 L.Ed. 1765 (1949) (“the proper measure of compensation is the rental that probably could have been obtained [but for the taking].”
• citing, e.g. Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1, 7, 69 S.Ct. 1434, 93 L.Ed. 1765 (1949) (“the proper measure of compensation is the rental that probably could have been obtained [but for the taking].”
• finding a temporary taking and rejecting a contract claim due to applicable precedent concluding that privity of contract was absent, in a case concerning the effect of EL-IHPA and the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 on a contract
• while \possible\ that a buyer could be identified, that \possibility is uncertain\ and a sale therefore too speculative to offset harm
• “CCA undoubtedly ha[d] the burden of proof on each of the Penn Central factors, including that of economic impact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).