United States v. Borodzik

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that the events described above had “radically transformed” the regulatory regime, working an “unforeseen change in the law”
• finding that denial of highest economic use of property “does not form a sufficient predicate for a taking.”
• finding that a 1964 master development plan was relevant to the takings analysis of permitting changes in the 1970s
• stating that the “master plan called for more than 12,000 single family tracts, numerous multifamily sites, school and park areas, shopping districts, marinas, beaches[,] and regular utilities”
• holding that mere expectancy is not property
• holding that mere expectancy is not property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).