Happy trails, with paid-for takings

by Walter Olson on March 11, 2014

The Supreme Court, 8-1 with Sotomayor dissenting, agrees with a Cato Institute brief (earlier) and disagrees with the government: the feds can’t conjure away landowners’ rights as part of the “rails-to-trails” program. Trevor Burrus explains.

{ 1 comment }

1 MattS 03.11.14 at 11:36 am

Question: What does or should happen if a particular partial taking has a negative value, that is if the partial taking actually increases the value of the remaining parcel beyond the value of the original parcel?

Comments on this entry are closed.