What did the Supreme Court hold in Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railway v. Chicago (1896)?The Court incorporated the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, thus requiring states to provide just compensation for seizing private property.
What is eminent domain?The authority of the government to seize private property to be used for a public purpose.
What are exactions?Government insitits upon private property in exchange for building permit
What is just compensation?The Fifth Amendment requirement that governments must pay the owners of private property seized for a public purpose. Just compensation levels are often determined by a ''fair market value'' standard.

What did the Supreme Court hold in Kelo v. City of New London (2005)?The Court upheld the City of New London's redevelopment plans. The plan called for tearing down Kelo's house to make room for Pfizer's multi-million dollar research facility. According to the Court, taking private property for corporate redevelopment was for public use because it serves a public purpose, namely creating jobs and increasingly the municipal tax base.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)?There is a taking where regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land. A state can avoid taking issue if it can show the regulation comports with nuisance or other well-established property laws
What did the Supreme Court hold in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978)?No taking when government designated a building as a historical landmark and prevented owner from constructing a substantial expansion on top of building. The regulation did not take away any tradition use of the property and the property maintained reasonable economic value.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922)?Taking can be found where gov't regulation of the use of property goes ''too far''

What are per se takings?1. Permanent, physical invasions of property; 2. Regulations that deprive an owner of all economically viable use of property, unless the regulation is designed to prevent a common law nuisance. If regulation deprives the land of 100% of its value, it is a per se taking.
What is a possessory taking?Government confiscates or physically occupies property
What is public use ?A condition of eminent domain that the government's authority to seize private property can only be exercised when the seizure is to accommodate a public purpose. Government seizures for other purposes are unlawful no matter how much compensation is paid.
What are regulatory takings?government regulation that diminishes the use and/or value of private property.

What did the Supreme Court hold in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)?Concluded that the adoption of a categorical rule that any deprivation of all economic use, no matter how brief, constituted a compensable taking would impose unreasonable financial obligations upon governments for the normal delays involved in processing land use applications.
What is a zoning ordinance?limit the way in which a person may use his property- diminish property's economic value
What did the Supreme Court hold in U.S. v. Causby (1946)?The Court held that farm owners were entitled to just compensation where aircraft activity from the neighboring military facility destroyed the traditional use of the land. Although the aircraft flew over and did not land on the farm, the Court held the aircraft nevertheless violated the airspace the farm owners could reasonably expect to enjoy.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)?The Court held that requiring a property owner to allow a permanent physical occupation of his property as a condition of obtaining a building permit is a taking, not merely a regulation of land use. Allowing public traffic along a beach did not serve the same purpose as limiting development to maintain the view of the beach from the street. The Court viewed the Coastal Commission's demand as "extortion" that required just compensation.

What did the Supreme Court hold in Berman v. Parker (1954)?The Court held that the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 met the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment. The Act was intended to redevelopment blighted slums. Although much of the land taken would be transferred to private developers, the Court held the taking was nonetheless for public use because the slums harmed the public and using eminent domain for redevelopment would benefit the public.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)?The Court upheld Hawaii's Land Reform Act of 1967. The purpose of this Act was to redistribute land from a small group to a broader population by requiring landlords to sell land to those who had been forced to lease it (by taking the land if the landlord and tenants couldn't agree on a price). Although the tracts were not meant to be used by the public, the takings served the public interest in establishing a working market for real property.