Study On The Inverse Condemnation In The United States

Condemnation can be traced back to Roman law period, and its development has experienced the traditional condemnation phase,extended condemnation phase and the modern condemnation. The United States established its modern condemnation and developed different forms in practice at the same time. The typical example is regulatory taking. Regulatory taking can be divided into two categories: physical regulatory taking and inverse condemnation.Physical regulatory taking is similar to the usual sense of condemnation,while inverse condemnation can be regarded as a kind of new form. The study on reverse condemnation helps us cope better with new situation and new problems emerging in the condemnation field. As a kind of regulatory taking,reverse condemnation has tight relation with it. In 1922, Pennsylvania Coal Co. V. went through the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Mahon case,the validation criteria of regulatory taking was determined. On this base, the U.S. also gradually forms a studying system of inverse condemnation establishment standards. The following classic cases,i.e. Penn Central Transp.Co.v.New York Cite in 1967,Agins.v.City of Tiburon in 1980,Nollan v.California Coastal Commission in 1987,and Lucas v.South Carolina Coastal Council, reflect the gradual evolution and development of the view of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning establishing inverse condemnation establishment standards. The tight relation between regulatory taking and reverse condemnation can be seen in theory development and research. The case of State ex rel.Geblin et al.v.Department of Highways represents the research of DOTD(Department of Transportation and Development) bill in the U.S. state of Louisiana, then educes the study of compensation principles and relief programs of reverse condemnation. With the clue of time and the emergence of new cases, inverse condemnation research in the United States gained continuous development and improvement, and so formed its legal provision. The establishment standards of inverse condemnation has experienced several periods: the argument of the existence of regulatory taking affected the determination of whether there is inverse condemnation, the Supreme Court admitted to three principles which determine the establishment of inverse condemnation, and the study of the establishment standards of inverse condemnation represented by easement. Under the condition that inverse condemnation was established, compensation principles and relief programs need to be further considered. The research of this problem can focus on the recent DOTD act in America. Through the typical precedent and the legal provision based on it, we can have a better understanding of inverse condemnation on the whole. In China, there is no statute law to establish inverse condemnation but we can not therefore deny its existence.This kind of proactive study helps to enrich our condemnation theory and prepare for our own inverse condemnation.