ABSTRACT
Comparative constitutional case law presents the analyst with a quite bewildering array of precedents regarding the validity, in terms of a constitutional property guarantee, of state interferences with private property interests. This chapter suggests an avenue for avoiding at least some of the confusions in this field, by introducing a number of distinctions that highlight the dangers of using decisions in one area as authority for cases in another. It focuses on a limited category of cases, defined by three considerations. The considerations include: the property in question consists of some kind of intangible commercial right or interest and the purpose of the state interference with the said property is to regulate, in terms of the state's police power, the use and exploitation of that property in some way or another. They also include: the effect of the regulation in question is so harsh or extreme that the property interest is lost, destroyed or rendered worthless in the process.
