Michael Rikon authored a column in the February 23, 2016, edition of the New York Law Journal titled, “Inverse Condemnation or De Facto Taking: What’s in the Name? In his article, Mr. Rikon discusses the difference between inverse condemnations and de facto takings, and that courts err in interchangeably using these terms. Mr. Rikon reviews the four different categories of inverse condemnations, also known as regulatory takings. Mr. Rikon covers Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., 544 U.S. 528 (2005), United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), Lucas v. South Carolina… read more
February 23, 2016