| 7 Cases Listed
Updated: March 4, 2002
Tal Technologies, Inc. v. The City of
Oklahoma City, S Ct. No. 01-1147
Petition Filed: February 1, 2002
Lower Court Opinion: The opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court is
unreported.
Question Presented:
Whether the taking by condemnation of private land under a false
pretense of specific public use by a municipality, with the city
then using that land for sale to a private developer who will profit
therefrom with private businesses, violates the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution concerning the taking of land
for public use only.
Rith Energy, Inc. v. The United States,
S. Ct. 01-1145
Petition Filed: February 4, 2002
Lower Court Opinion: 247 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); 270 F.3d 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2001); 44 Fed. Cl. 108 (1999); 44 Fed. Cl. 370 (1999).
Questions Presented:
1. When there is a total prohibition on any further use of the
leases, does the taking become non-categorical merely because the
owner was able to make limited use of the leases prior to the taking?
If the taking is partial instead of categorical:
2. When the owner is prohibited from mining coal based on a statutory
application which was unforeseeable, and never applied to any other
miner in the state before or since, does the owner lack reasonable
investment backed expectations solely because the statute existed
before it acquired the leases?
3. Do various facts which show that the owner was treated in
discriminatory and unfair ways, and which otherwise are relevant to
several issues in a regulatory takings case, become irrelevant because
the agency's permit denial is presumptively lawful?
4. Did the Court of Appeals misconceive the legal content of and
misapply various factors relevant in a partial takings case, including
the economic impact on the property owner and the character of the
government's action?
Rick's Amusement, Inc. v. State of South
Carolina S. Ct.|
No. 01-1139
Petition Filed: February 1, 2002
Lower Court Opinion: The opinion of the Supreme Court of South
Carolina is unreported.
Question Presented:
1. Are firms in heavily-regulated sectors categorically barred from
establishing cognizable property interests under the Takings and
Contracts Clauses, even when their businesses may be totally dependent
on regulatory licensing?
Eastern Minerals International, Inc. et
al., v. The United
States, S. Ct. No. 01-1100
Petition Filed: Jan. 25, 2002
Lower Court Opinion: 271 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
Questions Presented:
In a case seeking just compensation for categorical regulatory
takings of real property interests:
1. When the holder of a renewable lease proves tat seeking a
permit became futile before the right to renew the lease expired,
can the holder recover for a taking of the remaining lease tem and
the right to renew?
2. Can the holders of a royalty interest in minerals, which is of
unlimited duration, recover for a taking of that interest when
it is shown that seeking a permit became futile, and also that a
final decision denying a permit later was issued?
3. When a federal agency uses unfair and protracted procedures to
prevent the use of property, including failing to issue in
writing a decision it has reached to deny a permit, can affected
property owners recover for a taking?
4. What standards should a federal appellate court follow when
reviewing a trial court's factual findings on extraordinary delay
and other issues in a regulatory takings case?
Sacramento Municipal Utility
District v. United States of America, S. Ct. No. 01-1020
Petition Filed: Jan. 10, 2002
Lower Court Opinion: 271 F.3d 1357 (9th Cir. 2001)
Questions Presented:
1. Does the retroactive exaction of the "special
assessments" from SMUD take SMUD's property for public use
without just compensation, or deprive SMUD of its property without due
process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment?
2. Does the retroactive exaction of the "special
assessments" from SMUD constitute a targeted breach of the
commercial service purchase contracts between SMUD and the Government,
requiring the payment of damaged by the Government under United
States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996)?
Homebuilders Assoc. of N. Calif. v.
City of Napa, S. Ct. No. 01-893
Petition Filed: Dec. 11, 2001
Lower Court Opinion: 90 Cal. App. 4th 188 (2001)
Questions Presented:
1. Whether a city may condition a permit to build homes on
one's property on the landowner's subsidy of "low-income"
housing (either by selling or renting a specified percentage of the
homes at below-market rates or by paying an in-lieu fee), where the
city has failed to establish any nexus between the construction of
market-rate housing and an increased shortage of low-income housing.
2. Must a property owner request a waiver from a regulation
that is unconstitutional in every application before he can present
a claim that is ripe for judicial review?
3. Is the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution violated when apartment owners are
required to rent certain units in perpetuity at rates tied to the
median income of a city's residents without any consideration of
actual costs?
Pheasant
Bridge Corp. v. Township of Warren, S. Ct. No. 01-807
Petition Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Docketed: Dec. 3, 2001
Lower Court Decision: 777 A.2d 334 (N.J. 2001)
Questions Presented:
1. Does a land use regulation that does not bear any real and
substantial relationship to the ostensible purposes of zoning, as
applied to a particular property, fail to substantially advance a
legitimate state interest as to that property and thus constitute a
taking of that property so as to require the payment of just
compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment,
without regard to the economic impact of the regulation?
2. Is a property owner entitled to just compensation under
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment for a temporary taking of
property between the enactment of a land use regulation and a
subsequent judicial declaration that, as applied to such property,
it fails to substantially advance legitimate state interests?
Back to Supreme Court Opinion
Watch
Available
Now!
Takings
Litigation Handbook
Defending Takings Challenges
to Land Use Regulations |
