Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> inversecondemnation

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Real Estate & Property Law

: inversecondemnation

Does The "If It Looks Like A Tax And Walks Like A Tax, It Is A Tax" Rule Apply To Public Use?

By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)

ADVERTISEMENTS

We haven't followed the Obamacare cases except as interested observers, and have largely avoided digging deep into the opinions, preferring to allow minds immeasurably superior to ours to provide the high-altitude view. However, we naturally scanned the majority opinion for any tie-in to our favorite topic, eminent domain.

Starting on page 33, the Chief Justice writes about the "functional" approach to legislative labeling, pursuant to which the majority concluded that the requirement to purchase insurance (the "mandate") was a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxation power, even though Congress did not call it a "tax," and indeed packaged and sold it as anything but a tax. The majority concluded, "[t]hat constitutional question [is] not controlled by Congress's choice of label." Slip op. at 34. The opinion then provides examples where the Court held that particular exactions "not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress's power to tax," because the Court is "concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it."

Why that's a splendid idea, bully on that! We're starting to appreciate the Chief's "functional" approach. What say we apply that same test to a legislature's statement regarding the "public use" for which it is condemning property? What, you say, we can't do that, the standard the courts apply in eminent domain is to look only at "the taking's [stated] purpose, and not its mechanics?"

I, for one, am glad that CJ Roberts has seen the light, and will vote to grant cert next time someone files a petition seeking to overturn Berman, Midkiff, and Kelo.

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on June 29, 2012 (boomark / email).

Related Law Blog Posts

Search Blog Directory:

Supreme Court Rule Reviewed De Novo
I get this question a lot: What is the standard of review for interpretation of a state supreme court rule? Here?s the answer: ?Because Garlock's argument involves the construction of a supreme court rule, our review is de novo ? When interpreting a supreme court rule, a reviewing court should apply the same principles of construction that apply to a statute--that is, the reviewing court should ascertain and give effect to the intent of the supreme court in promulgating the rule ? The most reliable indicator of that intent is the specific language used in the rule ? When the language of a supreme court rule is clear and unambiguous, a reviewing court should apply the language without reference to other interpretive aids ?? The quote is from White v...

"'Public Duty Rule' Does Not Apply When Suit Against Public Employee Claims Wanton or Reckless Conduct"
From the site: "2009-0014. Estate of Graves v. Circleville, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-168.Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-168.pdf View oral argument video of this case...

"Ohio Unauthorized Practice Rule Amendments"
This post was written by Chuck Kallendorf: "The Ohio Supreme Court announced last Monday it's accepting public commentary on rule changes governing the unauthorized practice of law in the state...

Ohio unauthorized practice rule amendments
The Ohio Supreme Court announced last Monday its accepting public commentary on rule changes governing the unauthorized practice of law in the state. ( Announcement ) Technically, two rules apply, the proposed amendment to Rule VI of the Rules Governing the Bar of Ohio revises the definition of unauthorized practice to identify the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline as the

Did we ever make one of these before
On Tuesday we tried a case to the Court in the W.D. Va.And, per usual, I did some prep on the Rule 50 motion, only come to find out, Rule 50 does not apply to bench trials.So, I made a motion for judgment on partial findings, under Rule 52(c)...

Rule 1.10 amended by the ABA
At the Winter ABA meeting in Boston, the House of Delegates adopted a revised Rule 1.10, a rule change that was long debated. This rule permits the screening of a lawyer who moves laterally from one private law firm to another, so that conflicts of interest that apply to the moving lawyer under Model Rule 1...

Search Blog Directory: