Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br /> <br /> Apart from the two situations in which the Court would find a categorical taking or <br />taking per se, there is little guidance on what constitutes a regulatory taking, and courts have <br />relied on ad hoc factual inquiries. Pen Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 <br />(1978). In these cases, a court will analyze a regulatory takings claim under a three-part test in <br />which the court, considering the parcel as a whole, looks at: <br />1) The economic impact of the regulation on the owner; <br />2) The extent to which the regulation interferes with distinct legitimate, investment- <br />backed expectations; and <br />3) The character of the government action—does it result in the equivalent of a physical <br />invasion of the property or is it more a “public program adjusting the benefits and <br />burdens of economic life to promote the common good.” <br />Each of the tests for regulatory takings looks for the functional equivalent to an appropriation or <br />physical invasion of private property. Id. at 2084 <br /> <br /> <br />CONCLUSION: <br /> <br /> A tobacco license not including in use hookahs does not meet the three part test to <br />constitute a regulatory taking. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />(Research from House Research “Eminent Doman: Regulatory takings”) <br />