Penn Central Vs New York City Case Analysis

In the case of Penn Central v. New York City it was debated if the sate owed compensation for the denial of constructing office buildings over the Penn Central Station of New York. The main argument was that the sate not allowing the building of the office buildings, due to Penn Central being a historic landmark, was in direct violation of the Penn Central’s constitutional rights stated in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. The decision of the court was that that the state was not in direct violation of these rights, and this can be supported by Richard Posner ideas of economic realism. Also, Posner’s views would be agreed upon by Morris Cohen’s ideals.
In the case of Penn Central v. New York City the majority opinion of the court affirmed the prior action, and stated that the former decision was in the best interest of the general public. Mr. Justice Rehnquist stated the court’s opinion “We find no merit un that argument but we see no basis for disagreement with the New York court that the restrictions imposed are substantially related to the promotion of the general welfare”. This decision showed that the courts decided the case in favor of the New York decision because their original …show more content…
Posner states “Judicial independence makes the judges imperfect agents of legislature. This is tolerable not only for the resolution of ordinary disputes in a way that will encourage trade, travel, freedom of action, and other highly valued activities or conditions and will minimize the expenditure of resources on influencing governmental action”. Another argument that Posner would support is that that the judgment would minimize the resources used by the government, and the public. Posner’s point of view to support that affirmation would be supported by Morris

Show More

Related Documents: Penn Central Vs New York City Case Analysis

White Paper Full