Bagford v. Ephraim City–Although a contract may be a type of property right, there is no taking if a public agency does not renew a contract.
Bingham v. Roosevelt City–Discusses what constitutes a “protectible property right.”
Bountiful City v. DeLuca–Regulation of property for the public good becomes a taking if the regulation deprives owner of a significant amount of economic value.
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey–Compensation is the remedy for a property taking.
Colman v. Utah State Land Board–Discusses the operation and applicability of the Takings Clause, including “damaging” as a taking under the Utah Constitution.
Conatser v. Johnson–Public’s right to utilize the waters of the state, including touching stream beds.
Cornish Town v. Koller–Zoning ordinance may be a regulatory taking if all economic use of the property is lost.
Diamond Ranches B-Y v. Tooele County–Discusses what constitutes a taking.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles–Compensation required even if taking is only “temporary.”
Farmers New World Life Insurance Co. v. Salt Lake City–Recovery for permanent damaging of property for a public use.
Hamblin v. Clearfield–Takings claim may arise from storm water entering property from a public storm drain system.
Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis–The entire range of property rights available to the owner is critical to a takings analysis.
LC Canyon Partners, LLC v. Salt Lake County–What constitutes a “protectible property interest.”
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.–What constitutes a regulatory taking, and what happens when a regulation is invalid.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.–If a regulation requires any physical occupation of private property, a taking has occurred.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council–Taking occurs when regulation destroys all property value.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island–Ripeness considerations in regulatory takings.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City–When a regulation constitutes a taking of private property.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon–If regulation of property goes too far, it will be considered a taking.
Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores, Inc. v. Salt Lake City–Temporary interference with property is not a taking or damaging.
Sanguinetti v. United States–Damaging property as a taking under the Federal Constitution.
Wasatch County v. Okelberry–When continuous public use causes dedication of private land for a public road.
Wintergreen Group, LLC v. UDOT–Ripeness and right to pursue claims for compensation.
Yee v. City of Escondido–Right to rent property may not be conditioned on forfeiture of right to compensation for mandated physical occupation of the property.