lingle
governor
hawaii
et
al
chevron
argued
february
decided
may
concerned
effects
market
concentration
retail
gasoline
prices
hawaii
legislature
passed
act
limits
rent
oil
companies
may
charge
dealers
leasing
service
stations
respondent
chevron
one
largest
oil
companies
hawaii
brought
suit
seeking
declaration
rent
cap
effected
unconstitutional
taking
property
injunction
application
cap
stations
applying
agins
city
tiburon
declared
government
regulation
private
property
effects
taking
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interests
district
held
rent
cap
effects
uncompensated
taking
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
substantially
advance
hawaii
asserted
interest
controlling
retail
gas
prices
ninth
circuit
affirmed
held
agins
substantially
advance
formula
appropriate
test
determining
whether
regulation
effects
fifth
amendment
taking
pp
paradigmatic
taking
requiring
compensation
direct
government
appropriation
physical
invasion
private
property
see
pewee
coal
beginning
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
however
recognized
government
regulation
private
property
may
onerous
effect
tantamount
direct
appropriation
ouster
regulatory
actions
generally
deemed
per
se
takings
fifth
amendment
purposes
government
requires
owner
suffer
permanent
physical
invasion
property
see
loretto
teleprompter
manhattan
catv
regulations
completely
deprive
owner
economically
beneficial
us
property
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
outside
two
categories
special
context
exactions
discussed
regulatory
takings
challenges
governed
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
penn
central
identified
several
factors
including
regulation
economic
impact
claimant
extent
interferes
distinct
expectations
character
government
action
particularly
significant
determining
whether
regulation
effects
taking
three
inquiries
reflected
loretto
lucas
penn
central
aim
identify
regulatory
actions
functionally
equivalent
direct
appropriation
ouster
private
property
focuses
upon
severity
burden
government
imposes
upon
property
rights
pp
substantially
advances
formula
valid
method
identifying
compensable
regulatory
takings
prescribes
inquiry
nature
due
process
test
proper
place
takings
jurisprudence
formula
unquestionably
derived
due
process
precedents
since
agins
supported
citations
nectow
cambridge
village
euclid
ambler
realty
although
agins
reliance
precedents
understandable
viewed
historical
context
language
selected
imprecise
suggests
test
asking
essence
whether
regulation
private
property
effective
achieving
legitimate
public
purpose
inquiry
valid
method
discerning
whether
private
property
taken
fifth
amendment
purposes
stark
contrast
three
regulatory
takings
tests
discussed
substantially
advances
inquiry
reveals
nothing
magnitude
character
burden
particular
regulation
imposes
upon
private
property
rights
regulatory
burden
distributed
among
property
owners
thus
test
help
identify
regulations
whose
effects
functionally
comparable
government
appropriation
invasion
private
property
tethered
neither
text
takings
clause
basic
justification
allowing
regulatory
actions
challenged
clause
moreover
agins
formula
application
takings
test
present
serious
practical
difficulties
reading
demand
heightened
review
virtually
regulation
private
property
require
courts
scrutinize
efficacy
vast
array
state
federal
regulations
task
well
suited
also
empower
might
often
require
courts
substitute
predictive
judgments
elected
legislatures
expert
agencies
pp
holding
require
disturb
prior
holdings
although
applied
substantially
advances
inquiry
agins
see
never
found
compensable
taking
based
inquiry
moreover
cases
reciting
agins
formula
merely
assumed
validity
referring
dicta
see
preservation
council
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
although
nollan
california
coastal
commission
dolan
city
tigard
drew
upon
agins
language
rule
cases
established
entirely
distinct
substantially
advances
test
involved
special
application
doctrine
unconstitutional
conditions
provides
government
may
require
person
give
constitutional
right
receive
compensation
property
taken
public
use
exchange
discretionary
benefit
little
relationship
property
ibid
pp
plaintiff
seeking
challenge
government
regulation
uncompensated
taking
private
property
may
proceed
alleging
physical
taking
total
regulatory
taking
penn
central
taking
exaction
violating
nollan
dolan
standards
chevron
argued
substantially
advances
theory
entitled
summary
judgment
takings
claim
pp
reversed
remanded
delivered
opinion
unanimous
kennedy
filed
concurring
opinion
linda
lingle
governor
hawaii
et
petitioners
chevron
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
may
justice
delivered
opinion
occasion
doctrinal
rule
test
finds
way
case
law
simple
repetition
phrase
however
fortuitously
coined
quarter
century
ago
agins
city
tiburon
declared
government
regulation
private
property
effects
taking
regulation
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interests
reiteration
half
dozen
decisions
since
agins
language
ensconced
fifth
amendment
takings
jurisprudence
see
monterey
del
monte
dunes
monterey
citing
cases
case
us
lower
courts
applied
agins
substantially
advances
formula
strike
hawaii
statute
limits
rent
oil
companies
may
charge
dealers
lease
service
stations
owned
companies
lower
courts
held
rent
cap
effects
uncompensated
taking
private
property
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
substantially
advance
hawaii
asserted
interest
controlling
retail
gasoline
prices
case
requires
us
decide
whether
substantially
advances
formula
announced
agins
appropriate
test
determining
whether
regulation
effects
fifth
amendment
taking
conclude
state
hawaii
whose
territory
comprises
archipelago
islands
clustered
midst
pacific
ocean
located
miles
mainland
ranks
among
least
populous
hawaii
small
size
geographic
isolation
wholesale
market
oil
products
highly
concentrated
lawsuit
began
two
refineries
six
gasoline
wholesalers
business
state
time
respondent
chevron
largest
refiner
marketer
gasoline
hawaii
controlled
percent
market
gasoline
produced
refined
percent
wholesale
market
state
populous
island
oahu
gasoline
sold
retail
hawaii
different
service
stations
half
stations
leased
oil
companies
independent
another
owned
operated
open
dealers
remainder
owned
operated
oil
companies
chevron
sells
product
independent
stations
typical
arrangement
chevron
buys
leases
land
third
party
builds
service
station
leases
station
dealer
turnkey
basis
chevron
charges
monthly
rent
defined
percentage
dealer
margin
retail
sales
gasoline
goods
addition
chevron
requires
enter
supply
contract
dealer
agrees
purchase
chevron
whatever
necessary
satisfy
demand
station
chevron
product
chevron
unilaterally
sets
wholesale
price
product
hawaii
legislature
enacted
act
june
apparently
response
concerns
effects
market
concentration
retail
gasoline
prices
see
haw
sess
laws
statute
seeks
protect
independent
dealers
imposing
certain
restrictions
ownership
leasing
service
stations
oil
companies
prohibits
oil
companies
converting
existing
stations
stations
locating
new
stations
close
proximity
existing
stations
haw
rev
stat
cum
importantly
present
purposes
act
limits
amount
rent
oil
company
may
charge
percent
dealer
gross
profits
gasoline
sales
plus
percent
gross
sales
products
gasoline
thirty
days
act
enactment
chevron
sued
governor
attorney
general
hawaii
official
capacities
collectively
hawaii
district
district
hawaii
raising
several
federal
constitutional
challenges
statute
pertinent
chevron
claimed
statute
rent
cap
provision
face
effected
taking
chevron
property
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
chevron
sought
declaration
effect
well
injunction
application
rent
cap
stations
chevron
swiftly
moved
summary
judgment
takings
claim
arguing
rent
cap
substantially
advance
legitimate
government
interest
hawaii
filed
summary
judgment
chevron
claims
facilitate
resolution
summary
judgment
motions
parties
jointly
stipulated
certain
relevant
facts
agreed
act
reduces
per
year
aggregate
rent
chevron
otherwise
charge
stations
hand
statute
allows
chevron
collect
rent
otherwise
charge
remaining
stations
chevron
increase
overall
rental
income
stations
nearly
million
per
year
parties
stipulated
past
years
chevron
fully
recovered
costs
maintaining
stations
state
rent
alone
rather
company
recoups
expenses
combination
rent
product
sales
finally
joint
stipulation
chevron
earned
past
anticipates
continue
earn
act
return
investment
stations
hawaii
satisfies
constitutional
standard
district
granted
summary
judgment
chevron
holding
act
fails
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interest
effects
unconstitutional
taking
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
chevron
cayetano
supp
district
accepted
hawaii
argument
rent
cap
intended
prevent
concentration
retail
gasoline
market
importantly
resultant
high
prices
consumers
maintaining
viability
independent
concluded
statute
substantially
advance
interest
however
actually
reduce
costs
retail
prices
found
rent
cap
allow
incumbent
upon
transferring
occupancy
rights
new
lessee
charge
incoming
lessee
premium
reflecting
value
rent
reduction
accordingly
district
reasoned
incoming
lessee
overall
expenses
absence
rent
cap
savings
pass
along
consumers
incumbent
lessees
benefit
rent
cap
found
oil
company
lessors
unilaterally
raise
wholesale
fuel
prices
order
offset
reduction
rental
income
appeal
divided
panel
appeals
ninth
circuit
held
district
applied
correct
legal
standard
chevron
takings
claim
chevron
cayetano
appeals
vacated
grant
summary
judgment
however
ground
genuine
issue
material
fact
remained
whether
act
benefit
consumers
judge
william
fletcher
concurred
judgment
maintaining
reasonableness
standard
applicable
ordinary
rent
price
control
laws
instead
govern
chevron
claim
remand
district
entered
judgment
chevron
bench
trial
chevron
hawaii
called
competing
expert
witnesses
economists
testify
supp
finding
chevron
expert
witness
persuasive
state
expert
district
concluded
oil
companies
raise
wholesale
gasoline
prices
offset
rent
reduction
required
act
result
increase
retail
gasoline
prices
even
rent
cap
reduce
costs
found
pass
savings
consumers
went
reiterate
determination
act
enable
incumbent
sell
leaseholds
premium
incoming
lessees
obtain
benefits
rent
cap
acknowledged
rent
cap
preclude
oil
companies
constructively
evicting
dealers
excessive
rents
found
evidence
chevron
oil
company
attempt
charge
rents
absence
cap
finally
concluded
act
fact
decrease
number
stations
rent
cap
discourage
oil
companies
building
stations
based
findings
district
held
act
effect
ed
unconstitutional
regulatory
taking
given
failure
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interest
ninth
circuit
affirmed
holding
decision
prior
appeal
barred
hawaii
challenging
application
substantially
advances
test
chevron
takings
claim
arguing
deferential
standard
review
panel
majority
went
reject
hawaii
challenge
application
standard
facts
case
judge
fletcher
dissented
renewing
contention
act
reviewed
substantially
advances
standard
granted
certiorari
reverse
ii
takings
clause
fifth
amendment
made
applicable
fourteenth
see
chicago
chicago
provides
private
property
shall
taken
public
use
without
compensation
text
makes
plain
takings
clause
prohibit
taking
private
property
instead
places
condition
exercise
power
first
english
evangelical
lutheran
church
glendale
county
los
angeles
words
designed
limit
governmental
interference
property
rights
per
se
rather
secure
compensation
event
otherwise
proper
interference
amounting
taking
emphasis
original
scholars
offered
various
justifications
regime
emphasized
role
bar
ring
government
forcing
people
alone
bear
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
armstrong
see
also
monongahela
nav
paradigmatic
taking
requiring
compensation
direct
government
appropriation
physical
invasion
private
property
see
pewee
coal
government
seizure
operation
coal
mine
prevent
national
strike
coal
miners
effected
taking
general
motors
government
occupation
private
warehouse
effected
taking
indeed
watershed
decision
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
generally
thought
takings
clause
reached
appropriation
property
functional
equivalent
ouster
owner
possession
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
citations
omitted
emphasis
added
brackets
original
see
also
arly
constitutional
theorists
believe
takings
clause
embraced
regulations
property
beginning
mahon
however
recognized
government
regulation
private
property
may
instances
onerous
effect
tantamount
direct
appropriation
ouster
regulatory
takings
may
compensable
fifth
amendment
justice
holmes
storied
cryptic
formulation
property
may
regulated
certain
extent
regulation
goes
far
recognized
taking
rub
course
remains
discern
far
far
answering
question
must
remain
cognizant
government
regulation
definition
involves
adjustment
rights
public
good
andrus
allard
government
hardly
go
extent
values
incident
property
diminished
without
paying
every
change
general
law
mahon
supra
precedents
stake
two
categories
regulatory
action
generally
deemed
per
se
takings
fifth
amendment
purposes
first
government
requires
owner
suffer
permanent
physical
invasion
property
however
minor
must
provide
compensation
see
loretto
teleprompter
manhattan
catv
state
law
requiring
landlords
permit
cable
companies
install
cable
facilities
apartment
buildings
effected
taking
second
categorical
rule
applies
regulations
completely
deprive
owner
economically
beneficial
us
property
lucas
emphasis
original
held
lucas
government
must
pay
compensation
total
regulatory
takings
except
extent
background
principles
nuisance
property
law
independently
restrict
owner
intended
use
property
outside
two
relatively
narrow
categories
special
context
exactions
discussed
see
infra
regulatory
takings
challenges
governed
standards
set
forth
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
penn
central
acknowledged
hitherto
unable
develop
evaluating
regulatory
takings
claims
identified
several
factors
particular
significance
primary
among
factors
economic
impact
regulation
claimant
particularly
extent
regulation
interfered
distinct
expectations
ibid
addition
character
governmental
action
instance
whether
amounts
physical
invasion
instead
merely
affects
property
interests
public
program
adjusting
benefits
burdens
economic
life
promote
common
good
may
relevant
discerning
whether
taking
occurred
ibid
penn
central
factors
though
given
rise
vexing
subsidiary
questions
served
principal
guidelines
resolving
regulatory
takings
claims
fall
within
physical
takings
lucas
rules
see
palazzolo
rhode
island
concurring
although
regulatory
takings
jurisprudence
characterized
unified
three
inquiries
reflected
loretto
lucas
penn
central
share
common
touchstone
aims
identify
regulatory
actions
functionally
equivalent
classic
taking
government
directly
appropriates
private
property
ousts
owner
domain
accordingly
tests
focuses
directly
upon
severity
burden
government
imposes
upon
private
property
rights
held
physical
takings
require
compensation
unique
burden
impose
permanent
physical
invasion
however
minimal
economic
cost
entails
eviscerates
owner
right
exclude
others
entering
using
property
perhaps
fundamental
property
interests
see
dolan
city
tigard
nollan
california
coastal
loretto
supra
kaiser
aetna
lucas
context
course
complete
elimination
property
value
determinative
factor
see
lucas
supra
positing
total
deprivation
beneficial
use
landowner
point
view
equivalent
physical
appropriation
penn
central
inquiry
turns
large
part
albeit
exclusively
upon
magnitude
regulation
economic
impact
degree
interferes
legitimate
property
interests
agins
city
tiburon
case
involving
facial
takings
challenge
certain
municipal
zoning
ordinances
declared
application
general
zoning
law
particular
property
effects
taking
ordinance
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interests
see
nectow
cambridge
denies
owner
economically
viable
use
land
see
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
statement
phrased
disjunctive
agins
substantially
advances
language
read
announce
regulatory
takings
test
wholly
independent
penn
central
test
indeed
lower
courts
case
struck
hawaii
rent
control
statute
unconstitutional
regulatory
taking
supp
based
solely
upon
finding
substantially
advance
state
asserted
interest
controlling
retail
gasoline
prices
see
supra
although
number
takings
precedents
recited
substantially
advances
formula
minted
agins
first
opportunity
consider
validity
freestanding
takings
test
conclude
formula
prescribes
inquiry
nature
due
process
takings
test
proper
place
takings
jurisprudence
question
substantially
advances
formula
derived
due
process
takings
precedents
support
new
language
agins
cited
nectow
cambridge
case
plaintiff
claimed
city
zoning
ordinance
deprived
property
without
due
process
law
contravention
fourteenth
amendment
agins
went
discuss
village
euclid
ambler
realty
historic
decision
holding
municipal
zoning
ordinance
survive
substantive
due
process
challenge
long
clearly
arbitrary
unreasonable
substantial
relation
public
health
safety
morals
general
welfare
emphasis
added
see
also
nectow
supra
quoting
substantial
relation
language
euclid
viewed
historical
context
reliance
nectow
euclid
understandable
agins
first
case
involving
challenge
zoning
regulations
many
decades
natural
turn
seminal
zoning
precedents
guidance
see
brief
amicus
curiae
agins
city
tiburon
pp
arguing
euclid
set
principles
applicable
determination
facial
validity
zoning
ordinance
attacked
violation
takings
clause
fifth
amendment
moreover
agins
apparent
commingling
due
process
takings
inquiries
precedent
decision
penn
central
see
use
restriction
real
property
may
constitute
reasonably
necessary
effectuation
substantial
public
purpose
see
nectow
cambridge
supra
see
goldblatt
supra
quoting
language
lawton
steele
due
process
case
applying
deferential
standard
determine
whether
challenged
regulation
valid
exercise
police
power
due
process
clause
finally
agins
decided
history
referring
deprivations
property
without
due
process
law
takings
see
rowan
post
office
yet
clarify
whether
regulatory
takings
claims
properly
cognizable
takings
clause
due
process
clause
see
williamson
county
regional
planning
hamilton
bank
jefferson
city
although
agins
reliance
due
process
precedents
understandable
language
selected
regrettably
imprecise
substantially
advances
formula
suggests
test
asks
essence
whether
regulation
private
property
effective
achieving
legitimate
public
purpose
inquiry
nature
logic
context
due
process
challenge
regulation
fails
serve
legitimate
governmental
objective
may
arbitrary
irrational
runs
afoul
due
process
clause
see
county
sacramento
lewis
stating
due
process
clause
intended
part
protect
individual
exercise
power
without
reasonable
justification
service
legitimate
governmental
objective
test
valid
method
discerning
whether
private
property
taken
purposes
fifth
amendment
stark
contrast
three
regulatory
takings
tests
discussed
substantially
advances
inquiry
reveals
nothing
magnitude
character
burden
particular
regulation
imposes
upon
private
property
rights
provide
information
regulatory
burden
distributed
among
property
owners
consequence
test
help
identify
regulations
whose
effects
functionally
comparable
government
appropriation
invasion
private
property
tethered
neither
text
takings
clause
basic
justification
allowing
regulatory
actions
challenged
clause
chevron
appeals
general
principle
takings
clause
meant
bar
government
forcing
people
alone
bear
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
brief
respondent
quoting
armstrong
appeal
clearly
misplaced
reasons
indicated
test
tells
us
nothing
actual
burden
imposed
property
rights
burden
allocated
tell
us
justice
might
require
burden
spread
among
taxpayers
payment
compensation
owner
property
subject
regulation
effectively
serves
legitimate
state
interest
may
singled
burdened
owner
property
subject
ineffective
regulation
make
little
sense
say
second
owner
suffered
taking
first
likewise
ineffective
regulation
may
significantly
burden
property
rights
may
distribute
burden
broadly
evenly
among
property
owners
notion
regulation
nevertheless
takes
private
property
public
use
merely
virtue
ineffectiveness
foolishness
untenable
instead
addressing
challenged
regulation
effect
private
property
substantially
advances
inquiry
probes
regulation
underlying
validity
inquiry
logically
prior
distinct
question
whether
regulation
effects
taking
takings
clause
presupposes
government
acted
pursuit
valid
public
purpose
clause
expressly
requires
compensation
government
takes
private
property
public
use
bar
government
interfering
property
rights
rather
requires
compensation
event
otherwise
proper
interference
amounting
taking
first
english
evangelical
lutheran
church
emphasis
added
conversely
government
action
found
impermissible
instance
fails
meet
public
use
requirement
arbitrary
violate
due
process
end
inquiry
amount
compensation
authorize
action
chevron
challenge
hawaii
statute
case
illustrates
flaws
substantially
advances
theory
begin
unclear
significantly
hawaii
rent
cap
actually
burdens
chevron
property
rights
parties
stipulated
cap
reduce
chevron
aggregate
rental
income
stations
per
year
chevron
nevertheless
expects
receive
return
investment
stations
satisfies
constitutional
standard
see
supra
moreover
chevron
asserted
district
found
chevron
recoup
reductions
rental
income
raising
wholesale
gasoline
prices
see
supra
short
chevron
clearly
argued
let
alone
established
singled
bear
particularly
severe
regulatory
burden
rather
gravamen
chevron
claim
simply
hawaii
rent
cap
actually
serve
state
legitimate
interest
protecting
consumers
high
gasoline
prices
whatever
merits
claim
sound
takings
clause
chevron
plainly
seek
compensation
taking
property
legitimate
public
use
rather
injunction
enforcement
regulation
alleges
fundamentally
arbitrary
irrational
finally
substantially
advances
formula
doctrinally
untenable
takings
test
application
also
present
serious
practical
difficulties
agins
formula
read
demand
heightened
review
virtually
regulation
private
property
interpreted
require
courts
scrutinize
efficacy
vast
array
state
federal
regulations
task
courts
well
suited
moreover
empower
might
often
require
courts
substitute
predictive
judgments
elected
legislatures
expert
agencies
although
instant
case
tip
proverbial
iceberg
foreshadows
hazards
placing
courts
role
resolve
chevron
takings
claim
district
required
choose
views
two
opposing
economists
whether
hawaii
rent
control
statute
help
prevent
concentration
supracompetitive
prices
state
retail
gasoline
market
finding
one
expert
persuasive
concluded
hawaii
legislature
chosen
regulatory
strategy
actually
achieve
objectives
see
supp
along
way
determined
state
entitled
enact
prophylactic
rent
cap
without
actual
evidence
oil
companies
charged
charge
excessive
rents
see
based
findings
district
enjoined
enforcement
act
rent
cap
provision
chevron
find
proceedings
remarkable
say
least
given
long
eschewed
heightened
scrutiny
addressing
substantive
due
process
challenges
government
regulation
see
exxon
governor
maryland
ferguson
skrupa
reasons
deference
legislative
judgments
need
likely
effectiveness
regulatory
actions
well
established
think
less
applicable
foregoing
reasons
conclude
substantially
advances
formula
announced
agins
valid
method
identifying
regulatory
takings
fifth
amendment
requires
compensation
since
chevron
argued
substantially
advances
theory
support
takings
claim
entitled
summary
judgment
claim
iii
emphasize
holding
today
substantially
advances
formula
valid
takings
test
require
us
disturb
prior
holdings
sure
applied
substantially
advances
inquiry
agins
see
quoting
advance
language
finding
challenged
statute
intended
substantial
public
interest
case
found
compensable
taking
based
inquiry
indeed
cases
reciting
substantially
advances
formula
merely
assumed
validity
referring
dicta
see
preservation
council
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
del
monte
dunes
riverside
bayview
homes
might
argued
formula
played
role
decisions
nollan
california
coastal
dolan
city
tigard
see
brief
respondent
drew
upon
language
agins
cases
apply
substantially
advances
test
subject
today
decision
nollan
dolan
involved
fifth
amendment
takings
challenges
adjudicative
exactions
specifically
government
demands
landowner
dedicate
easement
allowing
public
access
property
condition
obtaining
development
permit
see
dolan
supra
permit
expand
store
parking
lot
conditioned
dedication
portion
relevant
property
greenway
including
path
nollan
supra
permit
build
larger
residence
beachfront
property
conditioned
dedication
easement
allowing
public
traverse
strip
property
owner
seawall
mean
line
case
began
premise
government
simply
appropriated
easement
question
per
se
physical
taking
dolan
supra
nollan
supra
question
whether
government
without
paying
compensation
otherwise
required
upon
effecting
taking
demand
easement
condition
granting
development
permit
government
entitled
deny
nolan
answered
affirmative
provided
exaction
substantially
advance
government
interest
furnish
valid
ground
denial
permit
refined
requirement
dolan
holding
adjudicative
exaction
requiring
dedication
private
property
must
also
ly
proportiona
nature
extent
impact
proposed
development
see
also
del
monte
dunes
supra
emphasizing
extended
standard
beyond
special
context
exactions
although
nollan
dolan
quoted
agins
language
see
dolan
supra
nollan
supra
rule
decisions
established
entirely
distinct
substantially
advances
test
address
today
whereas
substantially
advances
inquiry
us
unconcerned
degree
type
burden
regulation
places
upon
property
nollan
dolan
involved
dedications
property
onerous
outside
exactions
context
deemed
per
se
physical
takings
neither
case
question
whether
exaction
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interest
see
dolan
supra
nollan
supra
rather
issue
whether
exactions
substantially
advanced
interests
authorities
asserted
allow
deny
permit
altogether
explained
dolan
cases
involve
special
application
doctrine
conditions
provides
government
may
require
person
give
constitutional
right
right
receive
compensation
property
taken
public
use
exchange
discretionary
benefit
conferred
government
benefit
little
relationship
property
worlds
apart
rule
says
regulation
affecting
property
constitutes
taking
face
solely
substantially
advance
legitimate
government
interest
short
nollan
dolan
characterized
applying
substantially
advances
test
address
today
decision
read
disturb
precedents
years
ago
posited
regulation
private
property
effects
taking
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interes
agins
supra
lower
courts
case
took
statement
logical
conclusion
revealed
imprecision
today
correct
course
hold
substantially
advances
formula
valid
takings
test
indeed
conclude
proper
place
takings
jurisprudence
reaffirm
plaintiff
seeking
challenge
government
regulation
uncompensated
taking
private
property
may
proceed
one
theories
discussed
alleging
physical
taking
total
regulatory
taking
penn
central
taking
exaction
violating
standards
set
forth
nollan
dolan
chevron
argued
substantially
advances
theory
support
takings
claim
entitled
summary
judgment
claim
accordingly
reverse
judgment
ninth
circuit
remand
case
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
linda
lingle
governor
hawaii
et
petitioners
chevron
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
may
justice
kennedy
concurring
separate
writing
note
today
decision
foreclose
possibility
regulation
might
arbitrary
irrational
violate
due
process
eastern
enterprises
apfel
kennedy
concurring
judgment
dissenting
part
failure
regulation
accomplish
stated
obvious
objective
relevant
inquiry
chevron
voluntarily
dismissed
due
process
claim
without
prejudice
however
occasion
consider
whether
act
hawaii
session
laws
represents
one
rare
instances
even
permissive
standard
violated
apfel
supra
observations
join
opinion