Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

2926 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 505 U.S. 1077 cumstances in which state~law nuisance abatement may amount to a denial of all beneficial land' use as that concept is to be employed in our takings jurisprudence under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The nature of nuisance law, however, itidicates . that application of a regulation defensible on grounds of nuisance prevention or abatement will quite probably not amount to a complete deprivation in fact. The nuisance enquiry focuses on conduct, not on the character of the property on which that conduct is per~ fonned, see 4 Restatement (Second) of Torts f 821B (1979) (public nuisance)j id., f 822 (private nuisance), and the remedies for such , conduct usually leave the property owner with other reasonable uses of his property, see W. Keeton, D, Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts f 90 (5th ed. 1984) (public nuisances usually remedied by criminal prosecution or aba~ ment), id., ~ 89 (private nuiSances usually remedied by damages, injunCtion, or aba~ ment)j see also, e.g., Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 668-669, 8 S.Ct. 273, 301, 31 L.Ed. 205 (1887) (prohibition on use of property to manufacture intoxicating beverages "does not disturb the owner in the control or use of his property for lawful purposes, nor restrict his right to dispose of it, but is only a declaration by the State that its use ... for certain forbidden purposes, is prejudicial to the pub- lic interests"); Hadacheck v. Sebastian, ~9 U.S. 394, 412, 36 S.Ct. 143, 146, 60 L.Ed. 348 (1916) (prohibition on operation of brickyard did not prohibit extraction of clay from which bricks were produced). Indeed, it is difficult to imagine property that can be used only to create a nuisance, such that its sole economic value must presuppose the right to occupy it for such seriously noxious activity. The upshot is that the issue of what con~ stitutes a total deprivation is being ad- dressed by indirection, and with uncertain results, in the Court's treatment of defenses to compensation claims. While the issue of what constitutes total deprivation deserves the Court's attention, as does the relation~ ship between nuisance abatement and such total deprivation, the Court should confront these matters directly. Because it can nei- ther do so in this case, nor skip over those preliminary issues and deal independently with defenses to the Court's categorical com- pensation rule, the Court should dismiss the instant writ and await an opportunity to face the total deprivation question squarely. Un- der these circumstances, I believe it proper for me to vow to dismiss the writ, despite the Court's contrary preference. See, e.g., Welsh 11. Wisconsin, 466 .U.S. '740, 765, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 2100, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984) (Burger, C.J.); United States '/I. Shannon, 342 U.S. 288, 294, 72 S.Ct. 281, 285,96 L.Ed. 321 (1962) (Frankfurter, J,). 505 U.S. 1079, 120L.Ed.2d 854 ...lJgroHenry Jose ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA. No. 91-7390. June 29, 1992. Rehearing Denied Sept. 4, 1992. See 605 U.S. 1245, 113 S.Ct. 26. Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Dade County, Arthur LSnyder, J., of firs~egree murder, second-degree murder, attempted murder, grand theft, and burgla- ry, and was sentenced to death. Defendant appealed. The Florida Supreme Court, 589 So.2d 887, affirmed, and defendant petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that, if weighing state decides to place capital- sentencing authority in two actors rather than one, neither actor must be permitted to weigh invalid aggravating circumstances. Reversed and remanded. :5hJ1ct:7z.