Connection lost
Server error
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: New York City’s landmark law prevented Penn Central from building an office tower over Grand Central Terminal. The Supreme Court held this was not a compensable “taking” because it did not interfere with the property’s primary use and allowed for a reasonable economic return.
Legal Significance: This case established the foundational multi-factor balancing test for analyzing regulatory takings claims, focusing on the regulation’s economic impact, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action, while rejecting a segmented view of property rights.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Penn Central Transportation Co. (Penn Central) owned Grand Central Terminal in New York City. Pursuant to its Landmarks Preservation Law, the city designated the Terminal a historic landmark, which required Penn Central to maintain the building’s exterior features. Penn Central entered into a lease agreement to construct a 55-story office building in the airspace above the Terminal. The Landmarks Preservation Commission rejected Penn Central’s plans, finding the proposed tower would overwhelm the historic facade and be an “aesthetic joke.” Penn Central did not seek judicial review of the denial but instead filed suit, claiming the application of the Landmarks Law constituted a “taking” of its private property—specifically its valuable air rights—without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The law provided that owners of landmarked properties could transfer their unused development rights (TDRs) to other parcels in the vicinity. Penn Central conceded that the Terminal, in its existing state, was capable of earning a reasonable return and that the TDRs had value.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a city’s application of a landmark preservation law that restricts a property owner’s ability to develop the airspace above a historic building constitute a taking of private property for public use requiring just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
No, the application of New York City’s Landmarks Law did not constitute Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla par
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a city’s application of a landmark preservation law that restricts a property owner’s ability to develop the airspace above a historic building constitute a taking of private property for public use requiring just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion
This landmark decision established the flexible, multi-factor balancing test that remains the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupta
Legal Rule
A land-use regulation does not effect a taking if it is substantially Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectet
Legal Analysis
The Court rejected Penn Central's argument that a taking occurs whenever a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A government regulation that restricts property use is not a taking
