Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDawes, Jaime L.
dc.date.accessioned2007-04-13T21:24:31Z
dc.date.available2007-04-13T21:24:31Z
dc.date.issued2002
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1928/2913
dc.description38 p. ; An outstanding student paper selected as a winner of the Helen S. Carter Prize.en
dc.description.abstractThe United States Supreme Court recently decided a takings case that many hoped would provide much needed guidance regarding takings claims brought by those who acquire property with notice of existing or impending restrictions. Until the recent case of Palazzolo v. Rhode Island the Supreme Court had hardly addressed the so-called "notice issue" that has frequently arisen in state and lower federal courts. In the absence of definitive direction from the Supreme Court, lower courts treated preexisting limitations in different ways, many finding notice to defeat an otherwise potentially successful claim for just compensation.en_US
dc.format.extent1832092 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectNotice Issueen_US
dc.subjectSupreme Court Decisionsen_US
dc.subjectState Court Decisionsen_US
dc.subjectFederal Court Decisionsen_US
dc.subjectClaimsen_US
dc.subjectRhode Islanden_US
dc.subjectRegulatory Takingsen_US
dc.titlePalazzolo v. Rhode Island: Clarification and More Confusion on the Notice Issueen_US
dc.typeOtheren_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record