查詢結果分析
相關文獻
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 美國之土地使用法管制以及其憲法許可界限=A Survey on the U.S. Land Use Control Laws and Its Constitutionally Permissible Boundaries |
---|---|
作 者 | 蔡懷卿; | 書刊名 | 玄奘法律學報 |
卷 期 | 2 2004.12[民93.12] |
頁 次 | 頁197-279 |
分類號 | 554.152 |
關鍵詞 | 土地使用法管制; 非法妨害私益; 非法妨害公益; 非法侵害; 土地分區使用管制; 警察權力; 管制; 準徵收; 公平補償; 特別犧牲; Land use control laws; Private nuisance; Public nuisance; Trespass; Zoning; Police power; Regulation; Taking; Just compensation; Sonderopfer; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本文首先分別檢討美國法關於土地使用之判例法和制定法管制情形。於判例法部份,依次討論「非法妨害私益」和「非法妨害公益」請求權之要件,以及美國侵權行為法(第二次)整編所臚列之權衡決定因素,同時比較非法妨害與非法侵害兩者之區分,說明非法妨害與環保法令之互動關係。於制定法部份,討論「土地分區使用管制」之發展治革、管制手段、彈性調整機制、既存不符規定使用之處置方式、以及「細部開發管制」。 其次,政府以警察權力對土地所行使之法管制有其憲法許可界限,逾越此一分際,政府之有權「管制」即變成依美國憲法第五條規定必須公平補償人民之「準徵收」行為;本文嘗試探討此一「管制VS.準徵收」之界限。本文以一系列美國聯邦最高法院之相關判例,包括馬洪案、高斯貝案、賓州中央交通公司案、羅瑞圖案、諾蘭案、魯卡斯案、多藍案、帕拉佐羅案、以及太浩一希耶拉生態保育委員會案等作為討論標的,嘗試從這些判例中整理出一些可供決定「管制VS.準徵收」之考量因素和判斷標準'並運用這些準徵收法理來分析檢討我國大法官會議本於「特別犧牲」理論所作出之一系列與土地準徵收相關釋憲案例,期能達比較法研究目的。 |
英文摘要 | The first part of this article surveyed the U.S. land use control laws in terms of case laws and statutory laws, respectively. In the case laws area, the elements of “private nuisance” and “public nuisance”, and the factors for consideration outlined in Restatement (Second) of Torts were discussed. Nuisance was compared with trespass, and its relation with environmental protection legislation was expounded. In the statutory laws area, the evolution of zoning laws, its methods of control and adjustment, as well as the disposition for nonconforming uses were discussed. Subdivision regulation was also reviewed briefly. The second part of this article explored the constitutionally permissible boundaries for land use control under the U.S. governments’ police power, to draw line where regulation ceased and a “taking”occurred hence “just compensation” is mandated by the fifth amendment. In an effort to search for guidelines to help determining whether a governmental action is a “regulation” or a “taking,” a series of the U.S. Supreme Court cases pertinent to this issue viz. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, United States v. Causby, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Co中., Nollan v. California Costal Commission, Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council, Dolan v. City of Tigard, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island et al,Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, were studied. The taking jurisprudences learned from these U.S. cases were then applied for a comparative legal study to analyze the eminent domain cases of Taiwan’s, whereas the Constitutional Court of Taiwan renders its constitutional protection of property rights based on the Germanic Legal System’s“sonderopfer” theory,. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。