What is a possessory taking?

Hypo 1: Hypofornia passes a new law that requires landlords to allow Cable TV providers to install their hardware inside of each rental unit. The law allows landlords to charge the Cable TV providers to do so, but limits it to $1. Hypofornia hopes that providing such infrastructure will help the public have better access to information. Bob, a landlord in Hypofornia, is upset and sues. Result: Bob owns the property, and Hypofornia is forcing Bob to allow others to enter his property and install their own services on them. Adding salt to the wound, Hypofornia limits Bob's ability to charge more than $1 for this encroachment of his property. Even though it isn't the State itself performing the installations, the law effectively acts as a "possessory taking," which will require the State to justly compensate Bob.

Hypo 2: Sam owns a large pond near the coast of Hypofornia. One day, Sam decides he wants to develop the pond into a business by converting it into a marina where people can pay him to dock their boats. To achieve this, Sam invests a substantial amount of money to dredge the pond, making it deeper, and ultimately digs through a sand barrier to connect his marina to a public bay. After connecting to the bay, the Federal government tells Sam, "Thanks for doing that, but you should know that Federal law gives us power over all navigable waters, which now applies to your marina, which means you must now provide public access to it." Sam sues. Result: The court finds against the Federal government here because Sam had invested substantial amounts of money converting a pond into a functional marina and to deprive Sam of private control of his marina would amount to a taking, which would require the Federal government to invoke its eminent domain power and pay Sam just compensation if they wished to open it to the public against Sam's will.

Hypo 3: Hypofornia is known for its delicious avocados. In fact, it invests millions of dollars per year to keep the country's guacamole supply flowing. A huge part of Hypofornia's economy and agricultural jobs are reliant on avocados. One year, Sam decides to plant an orchard of cherry trees in his backyard. He invests thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, a fungal disease breaks out in Hypofornia that initially infests cherry trees before spreading to avocado trees. The fungus has no impact on cherry trees but causes immediate death in avocado trees. In response, Hypofornia passes a law that requires infected cherry trees to be destroyed. Inspectors notify Sam that his trees have the fungus and must be destroyed. Sam sues. Result: Here, Hypofornia is essentially forcing Sam to destroy thousands of dollars of private property. However, they aren't doing this simply because its fun or to create some new public good (like a park). Rather, they are doing so as a response to an emergency situation where Hypofornia's entire economy could collapse if people like Sam are allowed to own cherry trees. Thus, this is an example of where the courts would not only support Hypofornia's destruction of Sam's private property, but deny Sam's ability to seek "just compensation." In other words, the public's interest in avocado trees remaining healthy outweighs Sam's enjoyment of private cherry trees to the point that Hypofornia's action's would not constitute a "taking."