Document Type

Article

Publication Title

University of Chicago Law Review

Abstract

In the first section, I contrast two approaches to the law of takings, one that treats takings disputes as derivative of or dependent on private law conceptions of property, and the second which does not. I argue that only the first maintains the integrity of constitutional doctrine, while the second, in common use today, affords insufficient protection against the expansion of state power. Second, I examine the status of the right to exclude as part of the basic bundle of property rights, chiefly in connection with Kaiser Aetna v United States, which announced the premier status of the right to exclude. Third, I look at the range of justifications, beyond those of private necessity, that are said to limit the scope of the right to exclude, chiefly in connection with the watershed case of PruneYard Shopping Center v Robins, decided shortly after Kaiser Aetna. Finally, I look at some of the cases subsequent to PruneYard.

First Page

21

DOI

https://doi.org/10.2307/1600196

Volume

64

Publication Date

1997

Download

Share

COinS