Penn Central Transport Co. v. New York

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Leonard J. Koerner (Argued the cause for the appellees)
Daniel M. Gribbon (Argued the cause for the appellants)
Patricia Wald (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
77-444
Appellee: 
New York
Appellant: 
Penn Central Transport Co.
Decided By: 
Burger Court (1975-1981)
Opinion: 
438 U.S. 104 (1978)
Categories: 
takings clause, property

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Penn Central Transport Co. v. New York , 438 U.S. 104 (1978)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_77_444)
Facts of the Case: 

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Law of 1965 empowered the city to designate certain structures and neighborhoods as "landmarks" or "landmark sites." Penn Central, which owned the Grand Central Terminal (opened in 1913), was not allowed to construct a multistory office building above it.

Question: 

Did the restriction against Penn Central constitute a "taking" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion: 

No. The Court held that the restrictions imposed did not prevent Penn Central from ever constructing above the terminal in the future. New York's objection was to the nature of the proposed construction and not to construction in general implemented to "enhance" the Terminal. Preventing the construction of a 50-plus story addition above the station was a reasonable restriction substantially related to the general welfare of the city.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for New York, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the minority, joined Rehnquist's dissent
Burger
Wrote the majority opinion
Brennan
Voted with the majority
Stewart
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Powell
Wrote a dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, joined Rehnquist's dissent
Stevens

Full Opinion by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.