Did a Constructive Taking (Inverse Condemnation) Occur? This Court held in E J. Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of Woonsocket, 122 R.I. 288, 290 n. 1, 405 A.2d 1187, 1189 n. 1 (1979): "`Inverse condemnation' is a term used to describe a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency. Ferguson v. Keene, 108 N.H. 409, 238 A.2d 1 (1968).
Where the government has taken private property, without formally exercising its power of eminent domain, a plaintiff may bring an inverse condemnation action to recover the value of the taken property. See E & J Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of Woonsocket, 122 R.I. 288, 290 n.1, 405 A.2d 1187, 1189 n.1 (1979). "The inverse-condemnation cause of action provides landowners with a means of seeking redress for governmental intrusions that, if performed by private citizens, would warrant analysis under the law of trespass."
By the same token, Rhode Island law specifically recognizes a landowner's right to obtain just compensation when government regulation unconstitutionally deprives him of an interest in his property. That principle was succinctly stated in E J, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency, 122 R.I. 288, 405 A.2d 1187 (1979), where the Rhode Island Supreme Court said: Governmental action short of actual acquisition of property may be a constructive taking or an inverse condemnation within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if such action deprives the property owner of all or most of his interest in the subject matter.
When all beneficial use of property is deprived by governmental restrictions, there is no question that an unconstitutional taking can occur even in the absence of a physical entry. E J Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of Woonsocket, R.I., 405 A.2d 1187, 1189 (1979). In such circumstances, an action in inverse condemnation lies because it permits recovery against a governmental entity that takes the property in fact without formally exercising the power of eminent domain.
"'Inverse condemnation' is a term used to describe a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency." E & J Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of Woonsocket, 122 R.I. 288, 290 n.1, 405 A.2d 1187, 1189 n.1 (1979) (citing Ferguson v. Keene, 238 A.2d 1 (1968)). "The inverse-condemnation cause of action provides landowners with a means of seeking redress for governmental intrusions that, if performed by private citizens, would warrant analysis under the law of trespass."
"'Inverse condemnation' is a term used to describe a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency." E J, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of Woonsocket, 122 R.I. 288, 290 n. 1, 405 A.2d 1187, 1189 n. 1 (1979) (citing Ferguson v. Keene, 108 N.H. 409, 410, 238 A.2d 1, 2 (1968)). "The inverse-condemnation cause of action provides landowners with a means of seeking redress for governmental intrusions. . . ."
Additionally, where the harm suffered by the plaintiffs resulted in an inverse condemnation, plaintiffs are entitled to compensation in the form of money damages. E J, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of Woonsocket, 122 R.I. 288, 405 A.2d 1187 (1979). Our Supreme Court has stated that governmental action short of actual acquisition of property "may be a constructive taking or an inverse condemnation within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if such action deprives the property owner of all or most of his interest in the subject matter."
[869] (Emphasis added) That language is certainly in keeping with the court's earlier description of the term "inverse condemnation" as "a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency" citing Ferguson v. Keene, 108 N.H. 409, 238 A.2d 1 (1968). E J Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of Woonsocket, 122 R.I. 288, 290 (n. 1) (1979). In accord with this expression is the distinction made inAgins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 258 (n. 2) (1980):
The Rhode Island Constitution prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation and Rhode Island state courts have long allowed recovery through suits for inverse condemnation. Annicelli v. Town of South Kingstown, 463 A.2d 133, 139 (R.I. 1983); E J Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of Woonsocket, 122 R.I. 288, 405 A.2d 1187, 1189 (1979) ("Governmental action short of actual acquisition of property may be a constructive taking or an inverse condemnation. . . ."); cf. Caldarone v. Rhode Island, 98 R.I. 7, 199 A.2d 303, 304 (1964) (assessing damages for land taken by state); see also Harris v. Mo. Conservation Comm'n, 790 F.2d 678, 680-81 (8th Cir. 1986) (finding constitutional provision provided adequate remedy).
"Governmental action short of actual acquisition of property may be a constructive taking or an inverse condemnation within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." E J Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of Woonsocket, 122 R.I. 288, 405 A.2d 1187, 1189 (1979). The cause of action is rooted in both the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions.