Section 21-79

Citation: Section 21-79
Parent Document: Eamiello v. Liberty Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 208 Conn. 620 (1988)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1988-08-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7893279/eamiello-v-liberty-mobile-home-... ↗

Full Text

993 chars

The Hall court suggested that the Santa Barbara ordinance fell into the second category. “When viewed in the light most favorable to the Halls, the allegations of the complaint seem to present a claim for taking by physical occupation, as in Loretto .... Reduced to its essentials, appellants’ claim is that the Santa *641Barbara ordinance has transferred a possessory interest in their land to each of their 71 tenants; that this interest consists of the right to occupy the property in perpetuity while paying only a fraction of what it is worth in rent; and that this interest is transferable, has an established market and a market value. If proven, appellants’ claims would amount to the type of interference with the property owner’s rights the Court described so eloquently in Loretto. See Fresh Pond Shopping Center, Inc. v. Callahan, 464 U.S. 875, 104 S. Ct. 218, 78 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from dismissal for want of substantial federal question).” Id., 1276.

Other Sections in This Document (80)

Full Text