翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ "O" Is for Outlaw
・ "O"-Jung.Ban.Hap.
・ "Ode-to-Napoleon" hexachord
・ "Oh Yeah!" Live
・ "Our Contemporary" regional art exhibition (Leningrad, 1975)
・ "P" Is for Peril
・ "Pimpernel" Smith
・ "Polish death camp" controversy
・ "Pro knigi" ("About books")
・ "Prosopa" Greek Television Awards
・ "Pussy Cats" Starring the Walkmen
・ "Q" Is for Quarry
・ "R" Is for Ricochet
・ "R" The King (2016 film)
・ "Rags" Ragland
・ ! (album)
・ ! (disambiguation)
・ !!
・ !!!
・ !!! (album)
・ !!Destroy-Oh-Boy!!
・ !Action Pact!
・ !Arriba! La Pachanga
・ !Hero
・ !Hero (album)
・ !Kung language
・ !Oka Tokat
・ !PAUS3
・ !T.O.O.H.!
・ !Women Art Revolution


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection : ウィキペディア英語版
Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

''Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not effect an unconstitutional taking of littoral property owners' rights to future accretions and to contact the water by upholding Florida's beach renourishment program.
At issue was whether the Florida Supreme Court violated the United States Constitution's regulatory Takings Clause when it upheld a plan to create a state-owned public beach between private waterfront property and the Gulf of Mexico through its beach nourishment program.
== Background ==

In 2003, the city of Destin and Walton County applied to add about 75 feet of dry sand to 6.9 miles of local eroded beach.〔Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 130 S. Ct. 2592, Slip Op. 5 (2010).〕 Beachfront property owners objected to the project and incorporated plaintiff Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. to stop the beach nourishment. Plaintiff lost its administrative challenge to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.〔Stop the Beach, Slip Op. 6.〕
On appeal plaintiff won, with the Florida First District Court of Appeal finding ownership of beachfront property as including a right for the property to forever touch the water.〔 The District Court of Appeal also certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court asking if Florida’s beach restoration statute was even constitutional.〔
The Florida Supreme Court answered the question, yes, the statute was constitutional and additionally quashed the District Court of Appeal’s order, finding that, no, there is no right for beachfront property to forever touch the water.〔Stop the Beach, Slip Op. 7.〕 Plaintiff then petitioned the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of its theorized property right was itself a taking without just compensation and so contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.〔

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.