首页> 外文期刊>Boston College environmental affairs law review >A TEXAS TAKINGS TRAP: HOW THE COURT IN EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY v. BRAGG FELL INTO A DANGEROUS PITFALL OF TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE
【24h】

A TEXAS TAKINGS TRAP: HOW THE COURT IN EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY v. BRAGG FELL INTO A DANGEROUS PITFALL OF TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE

机译:得克萨斯州的交易陷阱:爱德华兹含水层管理局对布拉格·费尔(Bragg Fell)的起诉是如何构成危险的诉讼法学的

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

In Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Bragg, the Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio held that the Edwards Aquifer Authority's water well permitting plan amounted to a compensable taking of a pecan farmer's private property. The court determined that the water regulation was so onerous that it was analogous to physical seizure of property by eminent domain. In its analysis, however, the court fatally misapplied the multi-part Penn Central test. The court implicitly framed the four Penn Central factors as elements instead of utilizing a more appropriate holistic balancing test. Framing the test in such a way improperly stacks the deck in favor of the private interest. If other courts adopt the Bragg version of the Penn Central test, "regulatory takings" will expand beyond their reasonable bounds as a cause of action and disastrously undermine states' ability to implement environmental regulation.
机译:在德克萨斯州上诉法院的Edwards Aquifer Authority诉Bragg案中,圣安东尼奥市法院认为Edwards Aquifer Authority的水井许可计划相当于对山核桃农民的私有财产进行了有偿赔偿。法院裁定,水法规太过繁重,以至于其在某些领域对财产的实际扣押都类似。但是,在分析中,法院致命地错误地应用了由多部分组成的Penn Central测试。法院隐含地将四个Penn Central因素作为要素,而不是使用更适当的整体平衡测试。以这种方式构架测试会不正确地堆叠甲板,以符合个人利益。如果其他法院采用布拉格版的Penn Central测试,“管制收入”将超出诉讼范围,成为诉讼的起因,并严重破坏各州实施环境法规的能力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号