How have the courts interpreted the takings clause in the context of price controls?

This continues to be the rule insofar as price controls in general are concerned. As the court acknowledged in Nebbia v. New York, supra, 291 U.S. 502, 537, 54 S.Ct. 505, however, it is so only "in the absence of other constitutional restriction." The takings clause is another constitutional restriction. A law restricting property rights may be valid as a proper [19 Cal.4th 995] exercise of the police power, but nonetheless violate the takings clause unless just compensation is paid by the government for the diminution of those rights.