Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/402296789/Brief-Amici-Curiae-of-NFIB-Small-Business-Legal-Center-et-al-Love-Terminal-Partners-L-P-v-United-States-No-18-1062-Mar-15-2019
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:07:24+00:00

Document:
Penn Central Transp. Co. v.
High-tech Firms, Commissioned by the U.S.
Breaking the Takings Claim, 102 Iowa L. Rev.
Quarter Century Retrospective, 28 Geo. Mason U.
entity other than amici funded its preparation or submission.
and received timely notice of amici’s intent to file.
and its important role in the global economy.
virtually every aspect of the real estate business.
constitutional takings in state and federal court.
I.R.C. § 501(c)(6) and sustained solely by its members.
Only one member lawyer is admitted from each state.
predictable and more equitable outcomes.
Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 (1992).
the character of the government’s conduct. 438 U.S.
investment-backed expectations of future profits. Id.
to prove profitable or offer a return on investment.
to continue in an established (non-noxious) use.
virtually all cases against the federal government. E.
Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 520, 118 S. Ct.
2131, 2144, 141 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1998) (citing 28 U.S.C.
2 See Luke A. Wake, The Enduring (Muted) Legacy of Lucas v.
subjective, test in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964)).
v. United States, 568 U.S. 23, 31-32 (2012).
Takings Claim, 102 Iowa L. Rev. 1847, 1848-49 (2017).
one of three factors in an amorphous balancing test.
23 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 171, 208 (2005).
investment-backed expectations of future profits.
fact that the subject property had yet to turn a profit.
likely to engage in a true balancing test).
should be borne by the public as a whole[.]”).
outright ignores) the real-world economic impact.
forecasts for future profits. See Monongahela Nav. Co.
its use brings to the owner.”); Comm’r of Transp. v.
generating future profits. See, e.g., United States v.
Thanksgiving Home, 123 A.D.3d 1313 (N.Y., App. Div.
has a fair market value of $150,000…”); Klungness v.
profits when expanding to a new location.
(last visited Mar. 12, 2019).
Problems & Priorities at 75.
notwithstanding “lack of incoming cash...”).
formulated, Penn Central is “admittedly standardless.” Eric R.
Cornell L. Rev. 1549, 1557 (2003).
nfib-2012.pdf (last visited Mar. 12, 2019).
that there was any economic impact at all.
Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 13 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts.
trying to decipher Penn Central’s meaning).
prospective economic value for the buyer.
claim, the property must lose all value.”); but see Lost Tree Vill.
Corp. v. United States, 787 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
value at some price point.”).
95 F.3d 1422, 1433 (9th Cir. 1996)) (alterations omitted).

References: v.

 § 501
 v. 
 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.