Mack Phillips v. Montgomery County, Tennessee
442 S.W.3d 233
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- Property Owners Mack Phillips and Leann Phillips own ~15.6 acres in Montgomery County.
- Planning Commission denied their preliminary subdivision plat citing conformity to the comprehensive plan and site suitability.
- Property Owners allege denial was based solely on land lying in the future path of State Highway 374.
- They filed a petition for writ of certiorari in chancery court; action also asserted as a regulatory taking under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-123.
- County moved to dismiss arguing Tennessee has not recognized regulatory takings under art. I, §21; trial court denied the motion.
- Court of Appeals reversed in part, remanding inverse condemnation claim; Supreme Court granted cross-petition to decide whether art. I, §21 encompasses regulatory takings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether art. I, §21 includes regulatory takings. | Phillips argues art. I, §21 covers regulatory takings. | Montgomery County argues art. I, §21 does not cover regulatory takings. | Yes; art. I, §21 encompasses regulatory takings. |
| Whether the complaint sufficiently states a state-regulated takings claim. | Complaint alleges denial based on highway path and seeks inverse condemnation relief. | County contends no takings claim under art. I, §21 exists. | Complaint is sufficient to state a regulatory takings claim. |
| Whether federal takings jurisprudence informs the Tennessee review of regulatory takings under art. I, §21. | Principles from federal takings law apply to state claim. | State should not import federal rules if not applicable. | Federal Takings framework informs state constitutional takings analysis. |
| What is the procedural posture for remedying a regulatory takings claim in Tennessee court system. | Claim should proceed to merits and potential compensation. | Proceedings should be dismissed or limited if no state takings claim. | Claim may proceed; remand to develop the regulatory taking claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (articulates per se takings categories and Penn Central framework)
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1922) (regulation may constitute a taking if it goes too far)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (per se physical taking rule)