New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

McQueen v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control

2/4/2004

 
Whether a State Can Use the Public Trust Doctrine to Deprive an Owner of His Right to Develop His Land

Sam McQueen owns two lots in an almost fully developed residential subdivision adjacent to a manmade drainage canal. The South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control is attempting, without compensation, to prevent McQueen from developing his property on the basis of the public trust doctrine. McQueen bought his two lots in 1961 and 1963 respectively. For financial and personal reasons, he did not seek to fill and develop the lots until 1991, when he sought permits to bulkhead his lots for erosion control. Ultimately, the State denied the permits in 1993. McQueen brought an action for a regulatory taking of the lots in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, which found a total regulatory taking. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the taking but reversed for a re-assessment of damages.  On further appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the takings finding on the grounds of the so-called “notice rule,” which held that a party on notice of a regulatory impact on its property was barred from contesting the regulation as a taking. In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court applied the rule to bar McQueen from developing his wetland property because he failed to apply to develop his property over the years in the face of ever more stringent wetlands regulations.  The United States granted certiorari and remanded for reconsideration in light of Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), which prohibited the use of “notice rule” as a bar to regulatory takings claims.  On remand, the South Carolina did not address the notice rule, but instead determined that McQueen was prohibited from developing his property by the public trust doctrine, even though the decisions below had made no determination concerning the extent or effect of the public trust on the property.  

McQueen again petitioned for certiorari and NELF filed an amicus brief in support for his petition on behalf of itself, Anthony Palazzolo (whom NELF now represents on remand of that Supreme Court case), the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation. NELF argued that the Supreme Court should take this case because South Carolina’s expansion of the public trust beyond its historical roots to all marshland is contrary to constitutional principles and the expectations of thousands of owners of littoral and riparian properties.  The South Carolina Supreme Court, NELF argued, should not be permitted to break with long-established precedents in a result-oriented decision to prevent McQueen from receiving compensation for the State’s regulations which prohibited development of his property.  The Supreme Court denied McQueen’s petition for certiorari.


Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001