# Amicus Curiae Brief — Midlantic Nat. Bank v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0142%3A09

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1986
- **Citation:** 474 U.S. 494

## Text

vitice - Supreme Cou
FIL RD

APR & 1965
Nos. 84-801, 84-805

ALEXANDER , §
IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME sadlibds aut

October Term, 1984

MIDLANTIC NATIONAL BANK,
Petitioner,

V-

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
Respondent.

THOMAS J. O'NEILL,
Petitioner,

Ve

CITY OF NEW YORK,
Respondent.

dd ed

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

RONALD A. ZUMBRUN

ROBERT K. BEST
COUNSEL OF RECORD

TIMOTHY A. BITTLE
OF COUNSEL

Pacific Legal Foundation
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 350
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916)! 444-0154

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

3.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED. «cece eee eeeol

INTEREST OF AMICUS. .ccccccvesesevssessea
OPINION BELOW. ccc cece ceceseseveseseeed
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. .cccccccccsecsseed
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT..eceeeseeveeee sO
ARGUMENT. cccccccccccccccccccscesscccsccel

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT:
ISSUE lly See

II. POLICE POWER ACTS THAT
AFFECT PROPERTY MUST
BE ANALYZED TO DETERMINE

WHETHER COMPENSATION IS OWED....9

COMO Me cece cee cee eee eee oceeeoeeeeoeoae

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Page

Cases
Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979)...9

Armstrong v. United States,
364 U.S. 40 (1960). ccccccccccccecs Ph

Berman v. Parker,
DR i En. «cc eeegececeeeooces 10

Eiger v. Garrity,
246 U.S. 97 (1918)......00e- eecccecces 9

Hawaii Housing Authority v.
Midkiff, U.S. ‘
81 L. Ed. 2d 186 (1984).......... 10-11

Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining
and Reclamation Association,
452 U.S. 264 (1981)... cee veoes eccoehl

In the Matter of Quanta Resources
Corp., 739 F.2d 912
(3d Cif. Dee heeeeeeeececeeccoeoce Se O

Loretto v. Teleprompter
Manhattan CATV Corp.,
BBe Uses GLO CLSSBZ) co ccccccccccccceceh’

Penn Central Transportation Co.
v. City of New York,
438 UeWe 104 Pees eeeecoeoccococeehS

Ruckelshaus v. Monsanta Co.,
Wee a
ne Mr Mee CRORE). .ccccceccescekhS

eo 44 «

San Diego Gas & Electric Co.,
v. City of San Diego,
450 U.S. 621 (198l)..cccccccveee Terr. |

Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel.
Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 (1982)......... 7

Thompson v. Consolidated Gas
Utilities Corporation,
300 U.S. $5 (19ST) ccccccccccvcccese ll

United States v. General Moters
Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (1945)....-. sesveke

United States v. Security
Industrial Bank,
459 U.S. 70 TRG iccaceceese eeeee 12-14

Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v.
Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155 (1980)........ 8

United States Constitution

Fifth Amendment..... eevee eees 4,6-7, BGs 18

- iii -

Nos. 84-801, 84-805

IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

October Term, 1984

MIDLANTIC NATIONAL BANK,
Petitioner,

Ve

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
Respondent.

THOMAS J. O'NEILL,
Petitioner,

Ve

CITY OF NEW YORK,
Respondent.

i dd el

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

INTEREST OF AMICUS

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 36,
Pacific Legal Foundation respectfully subrits
this brief amicus curiae in support of
petitioners. Consent to the filing of this
brief has been granted by counsel for all
parties. Copies of the letters of consent
have been lodged with the Clerk of this
Court.

Pacific Legal Foundation is a
nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation,
incorporated under the laws of California for
the purpose of participating in litigation
affecting public policy. An independent
Board of Trustees authorizes participation in
a case only when it concludes that Pacific
Legal Foundation's position has broad public

support. The Board of Trustees has

authorized the filing of this prief.

0-05 ae a

7
oe ol a rey ar eo

Me2dtke, oF be _
‘" j a 4 i 2
’ ros ee
a 2-72) oo ,
~ i esas Py _ -
biiwis Senyeucl

: .
“4 7 of... ae .
,
q
- j
é
:
Fs
‘
»
- .
v
‘
s -
,
~
* ‘Pig
a % , a
. v a =)
;
4 = ®
p
*, su ‘ ve -
part : = ven wien 5 —
‘
7 7 “~~ * [> 7
eo é = ws ¢
gael ee A
. 2 ;
f 4 ) mee 4
2ies a A

ee —— ’ ;

Housing Authority v. Midkiff,

U.S. , 81 L. Ed. 2d 186, 196

(1984); Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26,

31-32 (1954). Thus, contrary to the
suggestion by the majority of the Court
of Appeals, there is no distinction
between the government authority to take
ownership of property and the authority
to regulate that property. The ability
to take property is merely a subsidiary
power of the government's overall police
power.

Governmental activities
affecting property, then, are
constrained by the same limitations
placed on all exercises of the police
power; that is, the activity must
reasonably promote the public health,

safety, or welfare. Hawaii Housing

Authority v. Midkiff, 81 L. Ed. 2d

e 16 «

és = f = ‘,
»
‘ ‘
2
-
J -
i |
i .
} .
¥
r i
J a . ‘
a
f
?
a
.
e
%
Fi 2
‘
> —-
=
:
a
t A
=
LJ -
: A = 79> 26
; sf
* - - ‘ Sane?
F
[ Lis G . ~ ce ie i ot}
'
+e 515 ‘ PY B's ivi .
‘
4 > .
rs &
’ _ » & Y - Cu.
i
7 \
«
4
{
a j

those individuals would be owed. United

States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S.

373, 378 (1945).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth
above amicus requests this Court to
expressly disapprove the Court of
Appeals‘ conclusion that prohibiting
abandonment cannot raise the question of
an uncompensated taking of a protected
property interest in violation of the
protections of the Fifth Amendment.

DATED: April 5, 1985.

Respectfully submitted,
RONALD A. ZUMBRUN
ROBERT K. BEST

COUNSEL OF RECORD
TIMOTHY A. BITTLE

OF COUNSEL
Pacific Legal Foundation

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 350
Telephone: (916) 444-0154

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

oe 18 «

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL

I, Linda S. Schaupp, declare as
follows:

I am a citizen of the United
States, residing or employed in
Sacramento, California.

My business address is 555
Capitol Mall, Suite 350, Sacramento,
California.

I am over the age of 18 years,
and am not a party to the above-entitled
action.

On April 5, 1985, true copies
of BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
were placed in envelopes addressed to:

Mr. William F. McEnroe
Nolan, O'Neill & Moore

60 Park Place
Newark, NJ 07102

Mr. Robert Abrams

Attorney General of the
State of New York

Mr. Norman Spiegel

Assistant Attorney General

2 World Trade Center

New York, NY 10047

Mr. Irwin I. Kimmelman
Attorney General of the
State of New Jersey

Mr. Richard F. Engel
Deputy Attorney General
Cc. N. 112

Trenton, NJ 08625

Mr. Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr.

Corporation Counsel for the
City of New York

Mr. Gary Tarnoff

Assistant Corporate Counsel

100 Church Street

New York, NY 10007

Mr. A. Dennis Terrell

Shanley and Fisher

131 Madison Avenue

Morristown, NJ 07960
which envelopes, with postage thereon fully
prepaid, were then sealed and deposited ina
mailbox regularly maintained by the United

States Postal Service in Sacramento,

California.

I declare under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct and
that this declaration was executed this
5th day of April, 1985, at Sacramento,

California.

/s/ LINDA S. SCHAUPP
LINDA S. SCHAUPP

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0142%3A09. Public record. Not legal advice.