Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

2886 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 505 U.S. 1003 50S U.S. 1003, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 ..,WooDavid H. LUCAS, Petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL. No. 91-453. Argued March 2, 1992. Decided June 29, 1992. Owner of beachfront property brought action alleging that application of South Car- olina Beachfront Management Act to his property constituted a taking without just compensation. The Common Pleas Court of Charleston County, Larry R. Patterson, Spe- cial Judge, awarded landowner damages and appeal was taken. The South Carolina Su- preme Court, Toal, J., reversed, 304 S.C. 376, 404 S.E.2d 895. Certiorari was granted, 112 S.Ct. 436, and the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia held that: (1) property owner's claim was ripe for review, and (2) South Carolina Supreme Court erred in applying "harmful or noxious uses" principle to decide case. Reversed and remanded. Justice Kennedy, filed opinion concur- ring in the judgment. Justices Blackmun and Stevens filed separate dissenting opinions. Justice Souter filed separate statement. 1. Federal Courts <::=>510 That South Carolina Beachfront Man- agement Act, which landowner claimed de- prived him of all economically viable use of property, was amended, after briefing and argument before South Carolina Supreme Court but prior to issuance of that court's opinion, to authorize issuance of special per- mits for construction or reconsb'uction of habitable structures in certain circumstances did not render unripe landowner's depriva- tion claim; South Carolina Supreme Court rested its judgment on merits of claim, rath- er than on ripeness grounds, thus precluding landowner from asserting any takings claim with respect to deprivation .which had oc- curred prior to amendment, and landowner alleged injury-in-fact as to preamendment deprivation. S.C.Code 1976, ~~ 48-39-250 et seq., 48-39-290(D)(1). 2. Eminent Domain <::=>2(1) There are two discrete categories of reg- ulatory deprivations that are compensable under Fifth Amendment without ease-specific inquiry into public interest advanced in sup- 'port of restraint; the first encompasses regu- lations that compel property owner to suffer physical invasion of his property, and the second concerns situation in which regulation denies all economically beneficial or produc- tive use of land. U.S.C.A Const.Amend. 5. 3. Eminent Domain <::=>2(1) When owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice. all economically bene- ficial use of property in name of cornmon good, that is, to leave his property economi- cally idle, he has suffered a "taking" within meaning of Fifth Amendment. U.S.C.A Const.Amend. 5. See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and def. initions. 4. Eminent Domain ~2(1) There are a number of noneconomic in- terests in land, such as interest in excluding strangers from one's land, the impairment of which will invite exCeedingly close scrutiny under takings clause. U.S.C.A Const. Amend. 5. 5. Federal Courts <::=>501 Where finding that was premise of peti- tion for certiorari was not challenged in brief in opposition, court would not entertain argu- ment in respondent's brief on the merits that such finding was erroneous. 6. Eminent Domain ~2(1.l) South Carolina Supreme Court erred in applying rule that harmful or noxious uses of property may be proscribed by government ~z