That principle was carried to the United States. Under U.S. law, the principal limitations on whether and the extent to which the State may interfere with property rights are set by the Constitution. The Takings clause requires that the government (whether State or federal—for the 14th Amendment's due process clause imposes the 5th Amendment's takings clause on state governments) may take private property only for a public purpose after exercising due process of law, and upon making "just compensation." If an interest is not deemed a "property" right or the conduct is merely an intentional tort, these limitations do not apply, and the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes relief.See, for example, "United States v. Willow River Power Co." (not a property right because the force of law not behind it); "Schillinger v. the United States," 155 U.S. 163 (1894) (patent infringement is a tort, not taking of property); "Zoltek Corp. v. United States", 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, if the interference does not almost completely make the property valueless, the interference will not be deemed a taking but instead a mere regulation of use." Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York", 438 U.S. 104 (1978). On the other hand, some governmental regulations of property use have been deemed so severe that they have been considered "regulatory takings."See United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985). Moreover, conduct is sometimes deemed only a nuisance, or another tort has been held a taking of property where the conduct was sufficiently persistent and severe.United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946).
That principle was carried to the United States. Under U.S. law, the principal limitations on whether and the extent to which the State may interfere with property rights are set by the Constitution. The Takings clause requires that the government (whether State or federal—for the 14th Amendment's due process clause imposes the 5th Amendment's takings clause on state governments) may take private property only for a public purpose after exercising due process of law, and upon making "just compensation." If an interest is not deemed a "property" right or the conduct is merely an intentional tort, these limitations do not apply, and the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes relief.See, for example, "United States v. Willow River Power Co." (not a property right because the force of law not behind it); "Schillinger v. the United States," 155 U.S. 163 (1894) (patent infringement is a tort, not taking of property); "Zoltek Corp. v. United States", 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir 2006). Moreover, if the interference does not almost completely make the property valueless, the interference will not be deemed a taking but instead a mere regulation of use." Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York", 438 U.S. 104 (1978). On the other hand, some governmental regulations of property use have been deemed so severe that they have been considered "regulatory takings."See United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985). Moreover, conduct is sometimes deemed only a nuisance, or another tort has been held a taking of property where the conduct was sufficiently persistent and severe.United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946).