Inverse taking law is a continuing work in progress as courts struggle to apply the purpose of the Taking Clause, “to bar [government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole, ”little to no facts”]. Just think about the simple divorce process. Three recent decisions from Florida provide guidance in situations where government action causes public action that adversely affects the property, elaborating on that, in addition to child support. In such cases, fact issues relating to causation would seem to be paramount. In one paternity case, the appellate court upheld the district judge’s finding that the government caused the taking . But in two cases, the courts rejected taking claims based on the pleadings alone, as a matter of law.
Inverse taking is an equitable remedy applying the state and federal constitutional Taking Clause to compensate; owners whose property value is destroyed without formal condemnation action. This website will give you some more information. However, to prevail, the property owner must show the government caused the taking. The government may argue that it does not cause control actions by members of the public. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York , 438 U 104 (1978), and its progeny rejected any set formula deciding when a taking occurs and to prescribe an ad hom ulti-factor analy is that i difficult to predict. However one seemingly fixed rule is that a per se taking results if the government either physically occupies private property, or by regulation or exaction, authorities a private party to physically occupy another’s valuable property.