Summary
The Supreme Court of New Jersey considered whether floodway regulations issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection effected a compensable regulatory taking of property. The court held that the lower courts applied the takings framework incorrectly, including by relying on administrative findings and limiting compensation to permitted uses, and remanded for determination under Lucas, the background-principles exception, and, if necessary, Penn Central.
Holdings
- A court must first determine whether the regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of the property under Lucas. If it does, just compensation is required unless background principles of state property or nuisance law prohibit the intended use. If it does not, the court must apply the Penn Central factors to determine whether a compensable taking occurred.
- The trial court could not rely on collateral estoppel to treat the administrative findings as conclusively establishing whether the floodway regulation denied all economically beneficial use of the property.
- The plaintiffs' ambiguous statement that they no longer disputed the administrative findings concerning danger from construction did not concede that the proposed construction was a nuisance under Lucas and did not bar the inverse-condemnation action.
Questions Presented
- What legal framework governs whether the DEP floodway regulation effected a compensable regulatory taking?
- Whether the lower courts properly determined the economic use and compensation consequences of the regulation by relying on findings from the prior hardship-waiver administrative proceeding.
- Whether collateral estoppel barred the trial court from independently determining whether the regulation denied all economically beneficial use of the property.
- Whether the plaintiffs' statement concerning the threat posed by construction established that background principles of nuisance law precluded compensation under Lucas.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (10)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)(followed)
- Bernardsville Quarry, Inc. v. Borough of Bernardsville, 129 N.J. 221, 608 A.2d 1377 (1992)(followed)
- Pheasant Bridge Corp. v. Township of Warren, 169 N.J. 282, 777 A.2d 334 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 (2002)(followed)
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)(followed)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005)(followed)
- Bronco Wine Co. v. Jolly, 129 Cal. App. 4th 988, 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 462 (2005)(followed)
- Hennessey v. Winslow Township, 183 N.J. 593, 875 A.2d 240 (2005)(followed)
- Warren v. Suffness, 225 N.J. Super. 399, 542 A.2d 931 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 113 N.J. 640, 552 A.2d 166 (1988)(followed)
- Davis Enterprises v. Karpf, 105 N.J. 476, 523 A.2d 137 (1987)(followed)
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…