South Carolina
How Collins v. City of San Diego applies in South Carolina: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Property.
South Carolina generally follows principles of governmental liability similar to those outlined in Collins v. City of San Diego. The focus is on whether a governmental action constitutes a taking under the state and federal constitutions, with an emphasis on the physical occupation of private property or substantial interference with property rights.
In South Carolina, for a governmental taking, there must be a permanent physical occupation or a regulation that leaves no economically viable use of property.
The court held that the city's ordinance, which imposed restrictions on property use without compensation, constituted a taking.
The court found that the DOT's actions resulted in a compensable taking as they permanently took possession of the property for public use.
The court held that a significant reduction in property enjoyment due to regulation amounted to a taking requiring just compensation.
South Carolina's approach mirrors the federal standard laid out in Collins v. City of San Diego, which emphasizes the necessity for compensation in cases of physical occupation or regulatory taking. However, state courts may interpret 'substantial interference' more broadly in a way that adapts to local contexts and policies.
Understanding the application of takings law in South Carolina may appear on the bar exam, particularly in questions related to property rights and governmental authority.