Aron Stephen. “Pioneers and Profiteers: Land Speculation and the Homestead Ethic in Frontier Kentucky.” Western Historical Quarterly 23, no. 2 (1992): 179–98.
Atack Jeremy, and Passell Peter. A New Economic View of American History. 2nd edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 1994.
Baltimore Sun, 31 May 1984.
Banner Stuart. Who Owns the Sky? The Struggle to Control Airspace from the Wright Brothers On. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Barzel Yoram. Economic Analysis of Property Rights. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Bell Abraham, and Parchomovsky Gideon. “The Uselessness of Public Use.” Columbia Law Review 106, no. 6 (2006): 1412–49.
Benedict Jeff. Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009.
Bogart Dan, and Richardson Gary. “Making Property Productive: Reorganizing Rights to Real and Equitable Estates in Britain, 1660–1830.” European Review of Economic History 13. no. 1 (2009): 3–30.
Bogue Allan G. “The Iowa Claim Clubs: Symbol and Substance.” In The Public Lands: Studies in the History of the Public Domain, edited byCarstensen Vernon, 47–69. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963.
Boone Catherine. “Property and Constitutional Order: Land Tenure Reform and the Future of the African State.” African Affairs 106, no. 425 (2007): 557–86.
Boyd Julian P., et al. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. 36 Vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950–2009.
Brooks Richard O., et al. The Supreme Court and Takings: Four Essays. South Royalton: Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 2005.
Caro Robert A.The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. New York: Vintage, 1975.
Cincone Gia L.“Land Reform and Corporate Redistribution: The Republican Legacy.” Stanford Law Review 39, no. 5 (1987): 1229–57.
A Citizen (David Henshaw). An Appeal to the Good Sense of the Legislature and the Community in Favor of a New Bridge to South Boston. Boston: True and Greene, 1825.
Clay Karen B.“Property Rights and Institutions: Congress and the California Land Act of 1851.” The Journal of Economic History 59, no. 1 (1999): 122–42.
Cushman Robert Eugene.Excess Condemnation. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1917.
De Alessi Louis. “The Economics of Property Rights: A Review of the Evidence.” Research in Law and Economics 2 (1980): 1–47.
Demsetz Harold. “Toward a Theory of Property Rights.” American Economic Review 57, no. 2 (1967): 347–59.
de Soto Hernando. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
Einhorn Robin L.“Species of Property: The American Property-Tax Uniformity Clauses Reconsidered.” The Journal of Economic History 61, no. 4 (2001): 974–1008.
Ellickson Robert C.“Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls.” University of Chicago Law Review 40, no. 4 (1973): 681–781.
Engerman Stanley L., and Sokoloff Kenneth L.. “Factor Endowments, Inequality, and Paths of Development Among New World Economies.” Economía 3, no. 1 (2002): 41–109.
Engerman Stanley L.Economic Development in the Americas Since 1500: Endowments and Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.
Engerman Stanley L. “Once Upon a Time in the Americas: Land and Immigration Policies in the New World.” In Understanding Long-Run Economic Growth: Geography, Institutions, and the Knowledge Economy, edited byCosta Dora L. and Lamoreaux Naomi R.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming.
Epstein Richard A.Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Epstein Richard A.“Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: A Tangled Web of Expectations.” Stanford Law Review 45, no. 5 (1993): 1369–92.
Fleck Robert K., and Hanssen F. Andrew. “Repeated Adjustment of Delegated Powers and the History of Eminent Domain.” International Review of Law and Economics 30, no. 2 (2010): 90–112.
Garnett Nicole Stelle.“The Neglected Political Economy of Eminent Domain.” Michigan Law Review 105, no. 1 (2006): 101–50.
Gates Paul W.“Tenants of the Log Cabin.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 9, no. 1 (1962): 3–31.
Gates Paul W.History of Public Land Law Development. Washington, DC: GPO, 1968.
Harper's Magazine, October 2005.
Hart John F.“The Maryland Mill Act, 1669–1766: Economic Policy and the Confiscatory Redistribution of Private Property.” American Journal of Legal History 39, no. 1 (1995): 1–24.
Hart John F.“Property Rights, Costs, and Welfare: Delaware Water Mill Legislation, 1719–1859.” Journal of Legal Studies 27, no. 2 (1998): 455–71.
Hartford Courant, various issues.
Horwitz Morton J.The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.
Jacobs Harvey M., and Bassett Ellen M.. “All Sound, No Fury? Assessing the Impacts of State-Based Kelo Laws on Planning Practice.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper No. WP10HJ1, Cambridge, MA, March 2010.
Jeon Yoong-Deok, and Kim Young-Yong. “Land Reform, Income Redistribution, and Agricultural Production in Korea.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 48, no. 2 (2000): 253–68.
Kanazawa Mark. “Efficiency in Western Water Law: The Development of the California Doctrine, 1850–1911.” Journal of Legal Studies 27, no. 1 (1998): 159–85.
Kanazawa Mark. “Origins of Common-Law Restrictions on Water Transfers: Groundwater Law in Nineteenth-Century California.” Journal of Legal Studies 32, no. 1 (2003): 153–80.
Kens Paul. Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998.
Koo Anthony Y. C.“Economic Consequences of Land Reform in Taiwan.” Asian Survey 6, no. 3 (1966): 150–57.
Kuhn Thomas S.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
Kutler Stanley I.Privilege and Creative Destruction: The Charles River Bridge Case. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, 1971.
La Croix Sumner J., Mak James, and Rose Louis A.. “The Political Economy of Urban Land Reform in Hawaii.” Urban Studies 32, no. 6 (1995): 999–1015.
La Croix Sumner J., and Rose Louis A.. “Public Use, Just Compensation, and Land Reform in Hawaii.” Research in Law and Economics 17 (1995): 47–82.
Leshy John D.“A Conversation About Takings and Water Rights.” Texas Law Review 83, no. 7 (2005): 1985–2026.
Levmore Saul. “Two Stories About the Evolution of Property Rights.” Journal of Legal Studies 31, no. 2, pt. 2 (2002): S421–51.
Libecap Gary D.Contracting for Property Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Libecap Gary D.Owens Valley Revisited: A Reassessment of the West's First Great Water Transfer. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007.
Libecap Gary D., and Lueck Dean. “The Demarcation of Land and the Role of Coordinating Institutions.” NBER Working Paper No. 14942, Cambridge, MA, May 2009.
Lopez Alberto B.“Revisiting Kelo and Eminent Domain's 'Summer of Scrutiny.'” Alabama Law Review 59, no. 3 (2008): 561–610.
Los Angeles Times, 31 May 1984.
McCormick Charles T.“The Measure of Compensation in Eminent Domain,” Minnesota Law Review 17, no. 5 (1933): 461–98.
McCurdy Charles W.The Anti-Rent Era in New York Law and Politics, 1839–1865. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.
Miller Gordon R.“Shaping California Water Law, 1781 to 1928.” Southern California Quarterly 55, no. 1 (1973): 9–42.
Miller M. Catherine.“Riparian Rights and the Control of Water in California, 1879–1928: The Relationship Between an Agricultural Enterprise and Legal Change.” Agricultural History 59, no. 1 (1985): 1–24.
Mittal Sonia, and Weingast Barry. “Self-Enforcing Constitutions: With an Application to Democratic Stability in America's First Century.” Stanford University Working Paper, Stanford, CA, July 2010.
Munch Patricia. “An Economic Analysis of Eminent Domain.” Journal of Political Economy 84, no. 3 (1976): 473–98.
New York. Report of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution of the State of New York. Albany, NY: E. & E. Hosford, 1821.
New York Times, various dates.
Nichols Philip Jr. “The Meaning of Public Use in the Law of Eminent Domain.” Boston University Law Review 20, no. 4 (1940): 615–41.
North American Review, June 1889.
North Douglass C., and Weingast Barry R.. “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England.” The Journal of Economic History 49, no. 4 (1989): 803–32.
Note. “Eminent Domain. Excess Condemnation. Condemnation for Purpose of Raising Funds.” Yale Law Journal 39, no. 1 (1929): 128–29.
Note. “The Public Use Limitation on Eminent Domain: An Advance Requiem.” Yale Law Journal 58, no. 4 (1949): 599–614.
Pisani Donald J.“Enterprise and Equity: A Critique of Western Water Law in the Nineteenth Century.” Western Historical Quarterly 18, no. 1 (1987): 15–37.
Pisani Donald J.“Squatter Law in California, 1850–1858.” Western Historical Quarterly 25, no. 3 (1994): 277–310.
Priest Claire. “Creating an American Property Law: Alienability and Its Limits in American History.” Harvard Law Review 120, no. 2 (2006): 385–459.
Proudhon Pierre-Joseph. What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government. 1840 edn.; n.p.: Forgotten Books, 2008, available at http://books.google.com/books?id=KZcysiWmMoQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=proudhon+what+is+property&hl=en&ei=_uZnTO_DBsXflgeJ1dmeBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Review of the Case of the Free Bridge, Between Boston and Charlestown. Boston: Dutton & Wentworth, 1827.
Robbins Roy M.“Preemption—A Frontier Triumph.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 18, no. 3 (1931): 331–49.
Robbins Roy M.Our Landed Heritage: The Public Domain, 1776–1936. New York: Peter Smith, 1950.
Rose Carol M.“Energy and Efficiency in the Realignment of Common-Law Water Rights.” Journal of Legal Studies 19, no. 2 (1990): 261–96.
Rosenthal Jean-Laurent. “The Development of Irrigation in Provence, 1700–1860: The French Revolution and Economic Growth.” The Journal of Economic History 50, no. 3 (1990): 615–38.
Sax Joseph L.“Some Thoughts on the Decline of Private Property.” Washington Law Review 58, no. 3 (1983): 481–96.
Sax Joseph L.“Property Rights and the Economy of Nature: Understanding Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council.” Stanford Law Review 45, no. 5 (1993): 1433–55.
Sax Joseph L.“Kelo: A Case Rightly Decided.” University of Hawai'i Law Review 28, no. 2 (2006): 365–72.
Scheiber Harry N.“Property Law, Expropriation, and Resource Allocation by Government: The United States, 1789–1910.” The Journal of Economic History 33, no. 1 (1973): 232–51.
Scheiber Harry N., and McCurdy Charles W.. “Eminent Domain Law and Western Agriculture, 1849–1900.” Agricultural History 49, no. 1 (1975): 112–30.
Shaw Lemuel. Reasons, Principally of a Public Nature, Against a New Bridge from Charlestown to Boston. Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1825.
Supreme Court of California, 1886.
Supreme Court of Michigan, 1981.
Tatter Henry. “The Preferential Treatment of the Actual Settler in the Primary Disposition of the Vacant Lands in the United States to 1841.” Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1933.
Taylor George Rogers.The Transportation Revolution, 1815–1860. New York: Rinehart, 1951.
Toll Seymour I.Zoned American. New York: Grossman, 1969.
United States Supreme Court, various years.
Van Atta John R.“‘A Lawless Rabble’: Henry Clay and the Cultural Politics of Squatters' Rights, 1832–1841.” Journal of the Early Republic 28, no. 3 (2008): 337–78.
van Ewijk Casper, and van Leuvensteijn Michiel, eds. Homeownership and the Labour Market in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Wallace Anthony F. C.The Long Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993.
Wallis John Joseph.“Constitutions, Corporations, and Corruption: American States and Constitutional Change, 1842 to 1852.” The Journal of Economic History 65, no. 1 (2005): 211–56.
Wall Street Journal, 1 June 1984.
Washington Post, 31 May 1984.
Williamson Mark B.“Land Reform in Japan.” Journal of Farm Economics 33, no. 2 (1951): 169–76.
Wolf Michael Allan.The Zoning of America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2008.
Zuck John M.“Kelo v. City of New London: Despite the Outcry, the Decision is Firmly Supported by Precedent—However, Eminent Domain Critics Still Have Gained Ground.” University of Memphis Law Review 38, no. 1 (2007): 187–230.