REM OA Holdings, LLC v. Northern Gold Holdings, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there was not a taking when the government designated a building as an historic landmark and prevented the owner from constructing a substantial expansion
• holding that ad hoc factual analysis is required on case-by-case basis, with no formula for deciding the extent to which a regulation must interfere with property rights to constitute an unconstitutional taking without just compensation
• recognizing that regulations are used to promote “health, safety, morals, [and] general welfare”
• stating that the question of what constitutes a regulatory taking “has proved to be a problem of considerable difficulty”
• observing that government actions, even those which “cause[ ] economic harm,” cannot be considered takings when they do not “interfere with interests that [are] sufficiently bound up with the reasonable expectations of the claimant to constitute ‘property’ for Fifth Amendment purposes”
• refusing to invalidate municipal landmarks law designed to preserve historic structures on ground that statute singled out certain landowners for financial hardship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).