John K. Yee, et al. v. City of Escondido, California (503 U.S. 519)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 1, 1992 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 503 U.S. 519 · 112 S. Ct. 1522
- Decided
- April 1, 1992
- Term
- October Term 1991
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice O'Connor
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Most of our cases interpreting the Clause fall within two distinct classes. Where the government authorizes a physical occupation of property (or actually takes title), the Takings Clause generally requires compensation. See, e. g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 426 (1982). But where the government merely regulates the use of property, compensation is required only if considerations such as the purpose of the regulation or the extent to which it deprives the owner of the economic use of the property suggest that the regulation has unfairly singled out the property owner to bear a burden that should be borne by the public as a whole. See, e. g., Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 123-125 (1978). The first category of cases requires courts to apply a clear rule; the second necessarily entails complex factual assessments of the purposes and economic effects of government actions. Petitioners own mobile home parks in Escondido, California. They contend that a local rent control ordinance, when viewed against the backdrop of California’s Mobilehome Residency Law, amounts to a physical occupation of their property, entitling them to…
Excerpt of a 33,607-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.