Penn Central

The essence of the infamous three-factor Penn Central test for whether a restriction on the use of private property under the police power “goes too far” and is treated as a de facto exercise of eminent domain is the Court’s admonition that the takings question is resolved by “essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries,” and not, generally speaking, by the application of categorical rules. To quote the unanimous Court (in an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg), there is no “magic formula” to determine “in every case, whether a given government interference with property is a taking,” because “of the nearly infinite variety of ways in which government actions or regulations can affect property interests.” Thus, there are “few invariable rules in this area.”…
Continue Reading CA9, 2-1: We Have A Magic Formula To Resolve Penn Central’s “Ad Hoc, Factual Inquiry” On 12(b)(6) In Every Case

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following for quite a while. In Ohio ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, LLC v. Mertz, No. 2026-Ohio-1487 (Apr. 29, 2026), the Ohio Supreme Court held that the operator of injection wells lacked an investment-backed expectation to operate such wells because it did business in a highly-regulated environment, and it understood at the time it purchased the property the risk it would be further regulated. Slip op. at 17-18.
Continue Reading Ohio: Temporarily Shutting Down Injection Wells After Earthquakes Is Not A Penn Central Taking

Here’s what’s on our radar screen today: Anthony Flint, How Zoning Won (Bloomberg) (“In 1926, the Supreme Court’s Euclid decision enshrined zoning in US cities. On its 100th anniversary, academics gathered to reflect on the landmark ruling’s mixed legacy.”)…
Continue Reading Today’s Dirt Law Round-Up: Zoning, Public Use, and Penn Central History

In Lifetime Communities, Ltd. v. City of Worthington, No. 25-3048 (Jan. 27, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the city’s refusal to upzone a vacant parcel from “S-1” (which permits only parks, hospitals, churches, and other similar institutional uses) to a designation that would allow mixed-use development, was not a Penn Central taking. …
Continue Reading CA6: Denial Of Rezoning Is Not A Penn Central Taking

As we wrap up another year, it’s time to look ahead to the one event that always gets our eminent domain blood pumping: the annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. Details, including faculty list, a complete agenda, and registration information is posted here.

Now in its 43rd year, this flagship gathering…

Here at inversecondemnation.com we also cover eminent domain, regulatory takings, land use, and environmental issues. We even cover election law when it strikes our fancy.

But here’s one that’s in our core competency: in Frick v. City of Salina, No. 101,355 (July 9, 2010) the Kansas Supreme Court held that property…

An interesting decision from the Kansas federal district court, Mount St. Scholastica, Inc. v. City of Atchison, No. 06-2208-CM (Mar. 12, 2007), contains a land use trifecta: historic preservation, religious objections to a denial of a permit, and regulatory takings.  (No link yet to opinion, which currently is only available via Westlaw; email me…