Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
- Decided
- October 2, 1978
- Docket
- 77-444
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,324 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that municipalities may generally enact land use controls to enhance the area’s quality of life — Pro-Eco, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of Jay County, Indiana (1995)
- holding that the application of New York City’s landmarking law to Grand Central Terminal did not effect an unconstitutional taking — Roman Catholic Bishop v. City of Springfield (2011)
- holding that a land use regulation is compensable as a taking under the Fifth Amendment only when the regulation denies all economically beneficial uses of the affected site — International College Of Surgeons v. City Of Chicago (1996)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether a city may, as part of a comprehensive program to preserve historic landmarks and historic districts, place restrictions on the development of individual historic landmarks — in addition to those imposed by applicable zoning ordinances — without effecting a “taking” requiring the payment of “just compensation.” Specifically, we must decide whether the application of New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Law to the parcel of land occupied by Grand Central Terminal has “taken” its owners’ property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.