Contact Us
Categories
- Real Estate Law
- Planning And Zoning
- Landlord
- Commercial Real Estate
- Zoning Regulations
- Lease
- Real Estate
- Residential Real Estate
- Tenant
- Commercial Lease
- Land Use Law
- Purchase Contract
- Code Enforcement
- Lenders
- Commercial Property
- Deeds
- Land Use
- Real Estate Investment
- Breach
- Gross Lease Vs. Triple Net
- Lease Agreement
- Net Lease Vs Gross Lease
- Net Vs Gross Lease
- URLTA
- Zoning Restrictions
- 1031 Exchange Accommodator
- 1031 Exchange Facilitator
- Affordable Housing
- Beneficial Interest
- Comprehensive Plan
- Condemnation
- Consent Degree
- Conservation Easement
- Delaware Statutory Trust
- Easement
- Easements
- Economic Development
- Elements And Implementation
- Emergency Preparedness
- Eminent Domain
- Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
- Fifth Amendment
- Fractional Investment
- Future Development
- High-End Real Estate Investments
- Investment Property
- Judgment Creditors
- Judgment Lien
- Kentucky
- Kentucky Consumer Protection Act
- Kentucky Supreme Court
- LFUCG
- Perpetual Lien Renewal
- Property
- Purchase And Sales Agreement
- Purchase Of Development Rights
- Qualified Intermediary
- Real Estate Offer
- Relevant Parcel
- Replacement Property
- Restrictive Covenants
- Right-Of-Way
- Safe By Design
- Section 1031 Transactions
- Service Agreements
- Short-Term Rental Properties
- Takings Clause
- Tax Deferred
- Tenancy-In-Common
- U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Wetlands
Insights
Filtered by tag: Fifth Amendment — View all
Regulatory Takings Cases and the Relevant Parcel: Murr v. Wisconsin
This summer, in Murr v. Wisconsin,[1] the United States Supreme Court will make an important decision on property rights and regulatory takings under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. At issue in the case is whether two legally distinct parcels of land can be treated as one for regulatory purposes if they share common ownership. In a time when planning and zoning regulations change sporadically, this case has broad implications for owners of commercial property, farmers, developers, mining operations and others that hold legal title to adjoining properties, so these groups should pay particular attention to this case.
