{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreihhowonrqzec4bddeeyjplr6wqyyeprorb53fveu66hcnp2nbob4m",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:neopp5z3zbi24mwiena7tt7j/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmze3uwznoo2"
  },
  "path": "/2026/05/guerra-pujol-on-two-views-of-miller-v.html",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-29T04:30:00.000Z",
  "site": "https://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com",
  "tags": [
    "Buchanan v. Samuels: The Cedar Rust Case Redux"
  ],
  "textContent": "Property teachers take note: **F. E. Guerra-Pujol, University of Central Florida** and the **Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico** , has posted Buchanan v. Samuels: The Cedar Rust Case Redux:\n\n\n> One of the most fascinating sessions at the 2025 meeting of the History of Economics Society (HES) was a roundtable on “The 50th anniversary of the Buchanan-Samuels Exchange.” As it happens, this intellectual exchange was motivated by an old takings case— _Miller v. Schoene_ , decided in 1928—and takings law is one of my areas of expertise. The remainder of my paper reframes the Buchanan-Samuels exchange as a three-act drama and is thus organized as follows: Act I sets the stage of our story by revisiting the dispute in _Miller v. Schoene_. Next, Act II compares and contrasts Samuels’s framing of this case with Buchanan’s alternate framing. For Samuels, in brief, _Miller v. Schoene_ is a textbook case of reciprocal harms, while for Buchanan, this case is about the sanctity of property rights. Lastly, Act III concludes with the climax and Buchanan’s denouement.\n\n--Dan Ernst",
  "title": "Guerra-Pujol on Two Views of Miller v. Schoene",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-29T04:30:00.109Z"
}