Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pruneyard Shopping V Robbins

    Uploaded by

    slumba
    168 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court held that a state law requiring owners of large shopping centers to allow members of the public to enter and distribute petitions does not constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property. The Court examined the character of the law, its economic impact, and interference with investment-backed expectations, finding that it did not unreasonably impair the value or use of the shopping center property. While property rights are important, the owners failed to show that excluding others was essential to the economic value of the property such that the state's limitation amounted to a taking requiring compensation. However, two justices issued concurrences noting potential constitutional issues with abolishing common law rights or compelling property owners to affirm views with which they disagree.

    Original Description:

    Digest for Pruneyard Shipping

    Original Title

    131. Pruneyard Shopping v Robbins

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court held that a state law requiring owners of large shopping centers to allow members of the public to enter and distribute petitions does not constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property. The Court examined the character of the law, its economic impact, and interference with investment-backed expectations, finding that it did not unreasonably impair the value or use of the shopping center property. While property rights are important, the owners failed to show that excluding others was essential to the economic value of the property such that the state's limitation amounted to a taking requiring compensation. However, two justices issued concurrences noting potential constitutional issues with abolishing common law rights or compelling property owners to affirm views with which they disagree.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    168 views2 pages

    Pruneyard Shopping V Robbins

    Uploaded by

    slumba
    The Supreme Court held that a state law requiring owners of large shopping centers to allow members of the public to enter and distribute petitions does not constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property. The Court examined the character of the law, its economic impact, and interference with investment-backed expectations, finding that it did not unreasonably impair the value or use of the shopping center property. While property rights are important, the owners failed to show that excluding others was essential to the economic value of the property such that the state's limitation amounted to a taking requiring compensation. However, two justices issued concurrences noting potential constitutional issues with abolishing common law rights or compelling property owners to affirm views with which they disagree.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PruneYard Shopping Center v.

    Robins
    447 U.S. 74,100 S. Ct. 2035, 64 L. Ed. 2d 741,1980 U.S.

    TOPIC. Freedom of Expression


    A state law which requires owners of large shopping enters to allow members
    of the public to enter their property to distribute petitions does not constitute
    a taking of property, even though the law limits the property owners right to
    exclude others from its property.
    FACTS:
    PruneYard (Appellant) is a shopping center open to the public. It has a policy not to
    permit any visitor or tenant to engage in any publicly expressive activity, including
    the circulation of petitions, which is not directly related to its commercial purposes.
    High school students (Appellees) set up a table in a corner of Appellants courtyard
    and distributed pamphlets in support for their opposition to a United Nations
    resolution against Zionism. A security guard told them to leave. Appellees seek to
    enjoin Appellants from denying them access to the property to circulate their
    petitions. Appellants content that their constitutionally established rights under the
    Fourteenth Amendment to exclude Appellees from adverse use of their private
    property cannot be denied by invocation of a state constitutional provision or by
    judicial reconstruction of a states laws.
    ISSUE: When a large shopping center is required to allow free expression and petition on its
    property, will that amount to a taking?
    RESOLUTION: No.
    ARGUMENTS & HOLDING

    The determination of whether a state law unlawfully infringes a landowners


    property in violation of the taking clause requires an examination of whether the
    restriction on private property forces some people alone to bear public burdens which,
    in all fairness and justice, should be born by the public as a whole. This includes
    inquiring into such factors as the character of the governmental action, its economic
    impact, and its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations.

    The requirement that appellants permit the students to exercise their protected
    rights of free expression and to petition on shopping center property clearly does not
    amount to an unconstitutional infringement of appellants property rights under the
    taking clause. It will not unreasonably impair the value or use of their property as a
    shopping center. The shopping center may restrict expressive activity by adopting
    time, place, and manner regulations that will minimize any interference with its
    commercial functions.

    Appellants have failed to show that the right to exclude others is so essential to the
    use or economic value of their property that the state-authorized limitation of it
    amounted to a taking.

    Concurrence.
    (Justice Thurgood Marshall) Justice Marshall did not understand why the Court
    suggested that rights of property are to be defined solely by state law, or that there is
    no federal constitutional barrier to the abrogation of common-law rights by Congress
    or a state government. Quite serious constitutional questions might be raised if a
    legislature attempted to abolish certain categories of common-law rights in some
    general way.
    (Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.) The state may not compel a person to affirm a belief he
    does not hold. A property owner may be faced with speakers who wish to use his
    premises as a platform for views that he finds morally repugnant. The strong

    emotions evoked by speech in such situations may virtually compel the proprietor to
    respond.inst other not similarly protected.

    You might also like