Skip to main content

View Diary: Can a Small California City Take on Wall Street - And Survive? (298 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees: (0+ / 0-)
    Although this Court never has squarely addressed the question whether a person can have a property interest in a trade secret, which is admittedly intangible, the Court has found other kinds of intangible interests to be property for purposes of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause. See, e.g., Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 44, 46, 80 S.Ct. 1563, 1566, 1567, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960) (materialman's lien provided for under Maine law protected by Taking Clause); Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 596–602, 55 S.Ct. 854, 866–869, 79 L.Ed. 1593 (1935) (real estate lien protected); Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 579, 54 S.Ct. 840, 843, 78 L.Ed. 1434 (1934) (valid contracts are property within meaning of the Taking Clause). That intangible property rights protected by state law are deserving of the protection of the Taking Clause has long been implicit in the thinking of this Court:

    “It is conceivable that [the term “property” in the Taking Clause] was used in its vulgar and untechnical sense of the physical thing with respect to which the citizen exercises rights recognized by law. On the other hand, it may have been employed in a more accurate sense to denote the group of rights inhering in the citizen's relation to the physical thing, as the right to possess, use and dispose of it. In point of fact, the construction given the phrase has been the latter.” United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 377–378, 65 S.Ct. 357, 359, 89 L.Ed. 311 (1945).

    Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1003 (1984)

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 09:28:56 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site