The TEMPTATIONS
THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION
(RECORDINGS 1964-75)
REMEMBER CLOCKS FALL BACK
SUNDAY 3:00 AM 2:00AM
Enjoy Your Extra Hour of Sleep!!
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
DQ100: Introduction (Krypton)
Effects of the Challenged Action
• Government action in Hadacheck: (p.101) L.A.
Ordinance banning operation of brickyard in city
• What limits are placed on the petitioner’s use of his
property?
• What uses of his property are still permissible?
• What is the harm to the petitioner?
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
DQ100: Introduction (Krypton)
Effects of the Challenged Action
• What is the harm to the petitioner?
• Incarceration!
• Claim re Value:
• Property worth $800,000 as brickworks
• Worth $60,000 as anything else
• NOTE: Courts don’t necessarily accept value
claims
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
DQ100: Introduction (Krypton)
• (1915) Claim re Property Value (PV):
• Property worth $800,000 as brickworks
• Worth $60,000 as anything else
• Claims re Loss of PV Often Short Term
• PV Fluctuates Significantly Over Time
• This was new part of LA; must have
increased sharply at some point
From John Criste: Brickworks Site Today:
West Pico & Crenshaw Blvds., L.A.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
DQ100: Introduction (Krypton)
Fit Into Demsetz Takings Story?
• Activity is Brickmaking
• Externalities: Some dust reaches nearby residents
• Old Rule: Brickworks Allowed to Operate if There First
• Change leads to rising externalities?
• Creates a demand for a change in the law?
• After the change, people affected by the new law
complain that their property rights have been
taken. (= Hadacheck Litigation)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
Procedural Posture
• Hadacheck convicted for violating ordinance
• Files Habeas Petition w California SCt; Loses
• Appeal to US SCt
– Claim that state law violated US Constitution
– At time, automatic appeal rather than pet’n for
certiorari
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
Procedural Posture
• Hadacheck convicted for violating ordinance
• Files Habeas Petition w California SCt; Loses
• Appeal to US SCt
• Status of Allegations in Petition (pp.102-03)
– p.103: “substantial traverses”
– Cal SCt found otherwise on health etc.
– US SCt says these findings supported by evidence
LOGISTICS: CLASS #28
• Wednesday DF Sessions shifting earlier to
9:00 a.m. to directly follow class.
• I’ll Adjust Assignment Sheet for Next Week
as Necessary After Today (Elective Choice)
• Group Assignment #3
– Assignment #1: Formatting Penalties on 12/28
– Assignment #2: Formatting Penalties on 14/28
–QUESTIONS??
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
URANIUM: DQ101-03
Reasoning; Possible Holdings & Rules
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ101 (Uranium)
Discrimination Claim
• Petitioner Says:
– I was singled out; ordinance passed to stop me
– Other brickworks in other districts treated differently
• How did the court deal with this claim?
– Cal SCt found ordinance not arbitrary/discriminatory
– US SCt said sufficient evidence supports that finding
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ101 (Uranium)
Arbitrariness/Discrimination Claims
• Made Frequently (Hadacheck, Miller, Penn Central)
• Hard to Win
– Must Be:
• Explicit Direct Attack on Someone -OR• Very Random Exercise of Govt Power
– Rare Example: Eubank (cited in Miller) complete delegation
of zoning decision to neighbors with no govt oversight
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ101 (Uranium)
Arbitrariness/Discrimination Claims
• Made Frequently But Hard to Win
• Generally OK to draw rough but plausible distinctions
– E.g., Between people under/over 21 years old
– E.g., Between neighborhoods
– E.g., Between types or size of brickworks, etc.
– Unless courts have found distinction problematic under
Equal Protection Clause or First Amdt (race; religion, etc.)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ101 (Uranium)
Arbitrariness/Discrimination Claims
• Made Frequently But Hard to Win
• Generally OK to draw rough but plausible distinctions
• I won’t (intentionally) make arbitrariness a serious
issue on final; don’t spend time on it!!
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)
Hadacheck & the Police Power (p.104)
• “[O]ne of most essential powers of government—one
that is the least limitable.” (p.104)
• “A vested interest cannot be asserted against it
because of conditions once obtaining.”
– MEANS?
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)
Hadacheck & the Police Power (p.104)
• “A vested interest cannot be asserted against it
because of conditions once obtaining.”
• Compare “Coming to the Nuisance”
– Defense for Private Nuisance
– Not defense for Public Nuisance
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)
Hadacheck & the Police Power: Reinman
• Little Rock bans livery stables
– Related to Change from Horses to Cars
– Similar Facts Alleged re Loss of Property Value
– US SCt says OK under Police Power
• Why does Petitioner in Hadacheck say L.A.
Ordinance Distinguishable?
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)
Hadacheck & the Police Power: Reinman
• Little Rock bans livery stables; US Sct says OK
• Petitioner: L.A. Ordinance Distinguishable b/c Brickworks Tied to Particular Location (Clay Pits)
• But Court Responds: Not Impossible to Run Business
Elsewhere
• Reliance on Reinman suggests that under Police
Power, OK to severely reduce value by eliminating
current use.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)
Hadacheck & the Police Power: Kelso
• San Francisco banned operation of rock quarry
• Cal. S.Ct. said unconstitutional
• Why Distinguishable from Hadacheck ?
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)
Hadacheck & the Police Power: Kelso
• San Francisco banned operation of rock quarry
• Cal. S.Ct. said unconstitutional; distinguishes
Hadacheck because:
– In Kelso, if you can’t quarry, rock is valueless
– In Hadacheck, clay still has value; can remove &
process elsewhere
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)
Hadacheck & the Police Power: Kelso
• Cal. S.Ct. draws distinction between
– Limit on use of land; and
– Complete elimination of value
• US SCt not bound by California state decision.
Does US SCt adopt Kelso reasoning?
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)
Hadacheck & the Police Power: Kelso
• Cal. S.Ct. draws distinction between limit on
use of land and complete elimination of value
• US SCt not bound by California state decision.
Does US SCt adopt Kelso reasoning?
– Explicitly reserves Q in last paragraph of opinion
– Does note clay still is available & has value
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)
Hadacheck & the Police Power: Kelso
• Cal. S.Ct. draws distinction between limit on
use of land and complete elimination of value
• Distinction raises important recurring Q: In
deciding if value remains, do you look at:
– All property owned by claimant (quarry + rock)
– Particular property most directly effected (just rock)
– Still value left in quarry, but not in rock.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Reasoning
DQ102 (Uranium)
Hadacheck & the Police Power: Kelso
• Important recurring Q: In deciding if value
remains (or amount of value lost), what portion
of claimant’s property do you look at?
• We’ll call this the “denominator” question:
– What do you use as denominator in fraction
showing how much property is lost (or is left)?
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)
What rules or principles can you derive from
Hadacheck to use in future cases?
• Start with very broad holding: Any exercise of
police power is Constitutional if not arbitrary.
• Narrower Versions?
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)
• Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary.
– Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary
and related to human health & safety
– Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary
and related to substantial concerns re human health &
safety
– Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary
and prohibiting public nuisance/ harmful use of land
– Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary
and prohibiting public nuisance in residential
neighborhood. (Burns B2)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)
Other possible rules or principles?
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)
Some possible rules or principles:
• Prohibiting existing use not automatically
unconstitutional
• Large decrease in property value not
automatically unconstitutional
• Maybe: Unconstitutional if all value removed
• Private interests must yield to progress & good
of community (cf. Shack)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)
Apply rules/principles from Hadacheck to
“Airspace Solution”
• Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary.
– Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary
and related to human health & safety
– Exercise of police power Constitutional if not arbitrary
and prohibiting nuisance/ harmful use of land
– Maybe: Unconstitutional if all value removed
Hadacheck v. Sebastian: Holding/Rules
DQ103 (Uranium)
Apply Hadacheck to “Airspace Solution”?
• Airspace Solution OK under broader
readings of reach of police power.
• If Kelso rule applies, raises “Denominator
Question”: Do We Look At:
– All of Hammonds’s Property (Tiny % Lost)
– Only at Underground Reservoirs (100% Lost)