Case Citator › Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courtsin review
272 of 273 flagged citations read · 99.6%
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
438 U.S. 104
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
272 of 273
Citing cases (total)
3,296
Treatment dates
1985–2021
Limited by some courts · in review
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City has been limited by two decisions listed below. Of 273 flagged citations, 272 have been read; the text needed to review one citing opinion could not be retrieved, so this record is still in review.
More on how this was screened

Althaus v. United States separated parts of the same tracts for takings analysis, and Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid held that Penn Central's balancing test has no place when a regulation physically appropriates property. The other opinions generally applied Penn Central or directed nearby adverse language at another authority, a party's argument, or property rights rather than Penn Central itself.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

3,296 later cases cite Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City; 273 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Claims Court separated improved areas from undeveloped remainders of the same tracts despite Penn Central's whole-parcel rule.

    Althaus v. United States · United States Claims Court · filed

    The court is not unmindful that “ ‘[t]aking’ jurisprudence does not divide a single parcel into discrete segments and attempt to determine whether rights in a particular segment have been entirely abrograted.” Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 130, 98 S.Ct. at 2662. But in this case, as the aerial inspection confirmed, the isolated improvements are complete and identifiable and can be measured by a habitable zone around them. The legislation contemplates this practice and the Park Service has implemented it. Improvements cannot be expanded into the remainder of the tracts upon which they sit. These remainders have suffered the same fate as parcels on which no development has yet occurred and it would exhalt form over substance to deny compensation for their taking.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court held that Penn Central's balancing test does not apply when a regulation physically appropriates property.

    Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Whenever a regulation results in a physical appropriation of property, a per se taking has occurred, and Penn Central has no place.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace