according to the Oregon Supreme Court in Coast Range Conifers, LLC v. State of Oregon (Kistler, J.). However, contrary to the holding of the Court of Appeals, in determining whether a regulation deprives a plaintiff landowner of all economically viable use resulting in a taking for purposes of Article I, section 18, a court must apply the "whole parcel rule," and determine whether the regulation deprives the plaintiff of economically viable use of the entire "parcel" of property, not merely of some sub-part of that parcel.
Notably, in construing Article I, section 18, the court reaffirmed that "Our goal in undertaking that inquiry is to identify the historical principles embodied in the constitutional text and to apply those principles faithfully to modern circumstances."
A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.
Posted by: Air Max | January 08, 2012 at 05:21 PM