Confirm favorite deletion?
Constitutional Law Keyed to Maggs
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York
Citation:438 U.S. 104 (1978)
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
The New York City Landmarks Preservation Law authorizes the Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate as a landmark property that has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, state or station. Such a designation permits the property owner to alter the exterior architectural features of the landmark or to construct any exterior improvements on the landmark site only with the advance approval of the Commission. In 1967, the Commission designated Grand Central Terminal as a landmark. Shortly after, Penn Central, which owned the Terminal, the UGP properties, applied to the Commission for permission to construct a new office building above the Terminal. The Commission rejected the proposals stating that it would impair the dramatic view of the Terminal from the South. Penn Central filed suit claiming that the denial of their application effected a taking of their property for which they had not received just compensation.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.