•  
  •  
 

Keywords

Florida, citrus canker, jurisprudence, due process, takings, temporary invasions, compensable takings, tree destruction, regulatory taking, categorical taking, prevention of harm, damage, social costs

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Under their police power, governments regulate nuisances and take actions in emergency situations. For protecting humans, animals, and plants from diseases and other pests (jointly referred to as diseases), governments order inoculations, quarantine items and people, and seize and destroy property.' With respect to plants and animals, the United States Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit the importation and movement of items than may be infested. The Secretary also has the authority to hold, treat, and destroy items to prevent the dissemination of plant and animal pests. State governments take additional actions to prevent the introduction and dissemination of diseases, including the destruction of property.

This Article examines takings jurisprudence to address the question of whether the destruction of valuable and allegedly nondiseased property in exposure zones is a compensable taking. Part One describes the situation in Florida under which homeowners' trees in exposure zones were destroyed. After an overview of takings jurisprudence, Part Two analyzes the decisions by the Bogorff trial and appellate courts. Part Three examines the Bogorff courts' justification for finding the state's action effected a taking. Part Four takes these issues and highlights how courts in other states have employed their discretion to go beyond what is required by the federal Takings Clause in requiring governments to compensate property owners.

Download

Share

COinS