Princeps et respublica ex justa causa possunt rem meam auferre
/PRIN-keps et res-POO-bli-ka eks YOO-sta KOW-sa POS-soont rem MAY-am ow-FER-re/·Latin maxim
Also known as:eminent domain · expropriation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Latin maxim declaring that condemnation of an estate burdened by a servitude modifies or terminates the servitude to the extent the taking permits a use inconsistent with continuance of the servitude.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Reservoir Inundates Irrigation Ditch
Pavel Petrov holds an irrigation-ditch easement across land owned by Maria Lopez. The state Water Resources Agency condemns Lopez's entire tract to build a public reservoir. The agency designs a concrete conduit that preserves water delivery around the lake. The condemnation therefore terminates the easement only as to the inundated alignment while preserving the underlying water right through the substitute conduit.
Steel Mill Seizure During Crisis
Parker Phillips holds an access easement across land containing a steel mill whose production the federal government needs for national defense. The President issues an order directing federal seizure of the mill to avert a strike. The order terminates the easement only to the extent the seizure permits a use inconsistent with continued enjoyment of the servitude.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Statutes
Federal Rules
Restatements
Dictionaries
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer343 U.S. 579 (1952)
Railroad Land Taken for Street
Pierce Patterson holds a railroad right-of-way easement across land the City of Chicago condemns to widen a public street. The city pays compensation measured by the value of the land taken. The condemnation terminates the easement only to the extent the street widening permits a use inconsistent with continuance of the servitude.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago166 U.S. 226, 239, 17 S.Ct. 581, 585, 41 L.Ed. 979 (1897)
Blighted Area Redevelopment
Pilar Pena holds an access easement across a department store site in a blighted district targeted for redevelopment. The city condemns the property and transfers it to a private developer. The condemnation terminates the easement only to the extent the redevelopment permits a use inconsistent with continuance of the servitude.
Berman v. Parker348 U.S. 26 (1954)
Wetland Regulation Blocks Development
Paul Peterson holds an access easement across coastal lots subject to strict wetland regulations. He claims the regulations effect a taking. The regulations modify the easement only to the extent they permit a use inconsistent with continuance of the servitude.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island533 U.S. 606 (2001)
Subsidence Law Destroys Mining Value
Pablo Perez holds a support easement whose surface support is removed by a state statute forbidding mining that causes subsidence. The law modifies the easement only to the extent it permits a use inconsistent with continuance of the servitude.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon260 U.S. 393 (1922)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
Does condemnation of the servient estate automatically extinguish every easement?+
No. Condemnation modifies or terminates an easement only to the extent the new public use is inconsistent with continued enjoyment of the servitude. If the public project can reasonably coexist with the easement, the servitude survives in modified form.
Supporting sources
When does a development exaction become an unconstitutional taking?+
A permit condition requiring conveyance of an easement constitutes a taking only to the extent the condition permits a use inconsistent with continuance of the servitude and lacks an essential nexus or rough proportionality to the development's impacts.
Supporting sources
Does the President possess unilateral authority to suspend private claims against foreign governments?+
The President may settle claims by executive agreement when supported by congressional acquiescence, but any resulting taking of a servitude interest modifies or terminates the servitude only to the extent the agreement permits a use inconsistent with its continuance.
Supporting sources
438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978)Property
…now must consider whether the interference with appellants’ property is of such a magnitude that “there must be an exercise of eminent domain and compensation to sustain [it].” Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon , 260 U. S., at 413. That inquiry may be narrowed to the question of the severity of the impact of the law on…