the temptations the ultimate collection (recordings 1964-75)
DESCRIPTION
The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75). REMEMBER CLOCKS FALL BACK SUNDAY 3:00 AM 2:00AM Enjoy Your Extra Hour of Sleep!!. Hadacheck v. Sebastian DQ100: Introduction (Krypton). Effects of the Challenged Action - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The TEMPTATIONSTHE ULTIMATE COLLECTION
(RECORDINGS 1964-75)
REMEMBER CLOCKS FALL BACKSUNDAY 3:00 AM 2:00AM
Enjoy Your Extra Hour of Sleep!!
![Page 2: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Hadacheck v. SebastianDQ100: Introduction (Krypton)
Effects of the Challenged Action •Government action in Hadacheck: (p.101) L.A. Ordinance banning operation of brickyard in city• What limits are placed on the
petitioner’s use of his property? • What uses of his property are still
permissible? • What is the harm to the petitioner?
![Page 3: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Hadacheck v. SebastianDQ100: Introduction (Krypton)
Effects of the Challenged Action •What is the harm to the petitioner? • Incarceration!• Claim re Value: • Property worth $800,000 as brickworks• Worth $60,000 as anything else• NOTE: Courts don’t necessarily accept value claims
![Page 4: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Hadacheck v. SebastianDQ100: Introduction (Krypton)
• (1915) Claim re Property Value (PV): • Property worth $800,000 as
brickworks• Worth $60,000 as anything else
• Claims re Loss of PV Often Short Term• PV Fluctuates Significantly Over Time• This was new part of LA; must have
increased sharply at some point
![Page 5: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
From John Criste: Brickworks Site Today: West Pico & Crenshaw Blvds., L.A.
![Page 6: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Hadacheck v. SebastianDQ100: Introduction (Krypton)
Fit Into Demsetz Takings Story?•Activity is Brickmaking• Externalities: Some dust reaches nearby residents• Old Rule: Brickworks Allowed to Operate if There First
•Change leads to rising externalities?•Creates a demand for a change in the law?•After the change, people affected by the new law complain that their property rights have been taken. (= Hadacheck Litigation)
![Page 7: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Hadacheck v. SebastianProcedural Posture
• Hadacheck convicted for violating ordinance
• Files Habeas Petition w California SCt; Loses
• Appeal to US SCt – Claim that state law violated US
Constitution– At time, automatic appeal rather than
pet’n for certiorari
![Page 8: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Hadacheck v. SebastianProcedural Posture
• Hadacheck convicted for violating ordinance
• Files Habeas Petition w California SCt; Loses
• Appeal to US SCt
• Status of Allegations in Petition (pp.102-03) – p.103: “substantial traverses”– Cal SCt found otherwise on health etc.– US SCt says these findings supported by
evidence
![Page 9: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
LOGISTICS: CLASS #28• Wednesday DF Sessions shifting earlier to
9:00 a.m. to directly follow class. • I’ll Adjust Assignment Sheet for Next Week
as Necessary After Today (Elective Choice)• Group Assignment #3– Assignment #1: Formatting Penalties on 12/28– Assignment #2: Formatting Penalties on 14/28
–QUESTIONS??
![Page 10: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
URANIUM: DQ101-03 Reasoning; Possible
Holdings & Rules
![Page 11: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ101 (Uranium)Discrimination Claim
•Petitioner Says: – I was singled out; ordinance passed to stop me– Other brickworks in other districts treated differently
•How did the court deal with this claim? – Cal SCt found ordinance not arbitrary/discriminatory– US SCt said sufficient evidence supports that finding
![Page 12: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ101 (Uranium)Arbitrariness/Discrimination
Claims•Made Frequently (Hadacheck, Miller, Penn Central)•Hard to Win– Must Be:• Explicit Direct Attack on Someone -OR-• Very Random Exercise of Govt Power
– Rare Example: Eubank (cited in Miller) complete delegation of zoning decision to neighbors with no govt oversight
![Page 13: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ101 (Uranium)Arbitrariness/Discrimination
Claims•Made Frequently But Hard to Win•Generally OK to draw rough but plausible distinctions– E.g., Between people under/over 21 years old
– E.g., Between neighborhoods
– E.g., Between types or size of brickworks, etc.
– Unless courts have found distinction problematic under Equal Protection Clause or First Amdt (race; religion, etc.)
![Page 14: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ101 (Uranium)Arbitrariness/Discrimination
Claims•Made Frequently But Hard to Win
•Generally OK to draw rough but plausible distinctions
•I won’t (intentionally) make arbitrariness a serious issue on final; don’t spend time on it!!
![Page 15: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)Hadacheck & the Police Power (p.104)•“[O]ne of most essential powers of government—one that is the least limitable.” (p.104)•“A vested interest cannot be asserted against it because of conditions once obtaining.”
–MEANS?
![Page 16: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)Hadacheck & the Police Power (p.104)•“A vested interest cannot be asserted against it because of conditions once obtaining.” •Compare “Coming to the Nuisance” –Defense for Private Nuisance–Not defense for Public Nuisance
![Page 17: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)Hadacheck & the Police Power:
Reinman•Little Rock bans livery stables– Related to Change from Horses to Cars – Similar Facts Alleged re Loss of Property
Value– US SCt says OK under Police Power
•Why does Petitioner in Hadacheck say L.A. Ordinance Distinguishable?
![Page 18: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)Hadacheck & the Police Power:
Reinman•Little Rock bans livery stables; US Sct says OK•Petitioner: L.A. Ordinance Distinguishable b/c Brick-works Tied to Particular Location (Clay Pits)•But Court Responds: Not Impossible to Run Business Elsewhere•Reliance on Reinman suggests that under Police Power, OK to severely reduce value by eliminating current use.
![Page 19: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)Hadacheck & the Police Power:
Kelso•San Francisco banned operation of rock quarry•Cal. S.Ct. said unconstitutional•Why Distinguishable from Hadacheck ?
![Page 20: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)Hadacheck & the Police Power: Kelso•San Francisco banned operation of rock quarry•Cal. S.Ct. said unconstitutional; distinguishes Hadacheck because:– In Kelso, if you can’t quarry, rock is valueless– In Hadacheck, clay still has value; can
remove & process elsewhere
![Page 21: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)Hadacheck & the Police Power: Kelso•Cal. S.Ct. draws distinction between – Limit on use of land; and – Complete elimination of value
•US SCt not bound by California state decision. Does US SCt adopt Kelso reasoning?
![Page 22: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)Hadacheck & the Police Power: Kelso•Cal. S.Ct. draws distinction between limit on use of land and complete elimination of value•US SCt not bound by California state decision. Does US SCt adopt Kelso reasoning?– Explicitly reserves Q in last paragraph of
opinion– Does note clay still is available & has
value
![Page 23: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)Hadacheck & the Police Power: Kelso
•Cal. S.Ct. draws distinction between limit on use of land and complete elimination of value•Distinction raises important recurring Q: In deciding if value remains, do you look at:– All property owned by claimant (quarry +
rock)– Particular property most directly effected
(just rock)– Still value left in quarry, but not in rock.
![Page 24: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)Hadacheck & the Police Power: Kelso•Important recurring Q: In deciding if value remains (or amount of value lost), what portion of claimant’s property do you look at?•We’ll call this the “denominator” question: –What do you use as denominator in
fraction showing how much property is lost (or is left)?
![Page 25: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)What rules or principles can you derive from Hadacheck to use in future cases? •Start with very broad holding: Any exercise of police power is Constitutional if not arbitrary.
•Narrower Versions?
![Page 26: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)• Exercise of police power Constitutional if not
arbitrary.– Exercise of police power Constitutional if not
arbitrary and related to human health & safety– Exercise of police power Constitutional if not
arbitrary and related to substantial concerns re human health & safety
– Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary and prohibiting public nuisance/ harmful use of land
– Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary and prohibiting public nuisance in residential neighborhood. (Burns B2)
![Page 27: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)
Other possible rules or principles?
![Page 28: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)Some possible rules or principles:•Prohibiting existing use not automatically unconstitutional•Large decrease in property value not automatically unconstitutional•Maybe: Unconstitutional if all value removed•Private interests must yield to progress & good of community (cf. Shack)
![Page 29: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)Apply rules/principles from Hadacheck
to “Airspace Solution”•Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary.– Exercise of police power Constitutional if
not arbitrary and related to human health & safety
– Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary and prohibiting nuisance/ harmful use of land
–Maybe: Unconstitutional if all value removed
![Page 30: The TEMPTATIONS THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION (RECORDINGS 1964-75)](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051117/56815a9f550346895dc82578/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)Apply Hadacheck to “Airspace
Solution”?•Airspace Solution OK under broader readings of reach of police power.•If Kelso rule applies, raises “Denominator Question”: Do We Look At: – All of Hammonds’s Property (Tiny % Lost)–Only at Underground Reservoirs (100%
Lost)