Category Archives: Inverse Condemnation

Subscribe to Inverse Condemnation RSS Feed

State Agency’s Intentional Flooding for Environmental Protection Results in Physical Taking of Private Property – Strict Liability Applies

Pacific Shores Property Owners Association v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (1/20/16, C070201) On January 20, 2016, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California ruled that where a state agency assumes control of a local flood control process, and it determines to provide less flood protection than historically provided by a … Continue Reading

The Supreme Court Gets It Right On Takings – And Wrong – A View from “Inside the Curtilage”: The Property Owner’s Perspective

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, No. 11-1447 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 2013) In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the Supreme Court cleared up two important, nagging issues with wide applicability and importance to property owners across the country. First, the 5-member majority, led by Justice Alito, held that … Continue Reading

Déjà Vu All Over Again: Ninth Circuit Rejects Yet Another Challenge To Rent Control, Including “Private Takings” Argument

By Claudia Gutierrez In MHC Limited Financing v. City of San Rafael, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit considered, among other things, whether the City of San Rafael’s mobilehome rent control ordinance (the “Ordinance”) constituted either a regulatory taking under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City or an impermissible “private” taking … Continue Reading

Court of Appeal Rules that Denial of a Landowner’s Application to Develop Property Can Be a Compensable Regulatory Taking

Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente, No. G043479, consol. with G043534 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist., December 14, 2011.) By Michael Hansen and Keith Garner The Fourth Appellate District recently held that a local agency’s denial of an application to develop a 2.85 acre parcel in the middle of a developed residential … Continue Reading

Statements of Intent to Condemn Do Not Give Rise to Inverse Condemnation Claim

Ashley Joffe v. City of Huntington Park, No. B222880 (Cal Ct. App. 2d Dist., November 11, 2011) By Michael Hansen The Second Appellate District recently held that public statements and other actions indicating an intent to condemn must clearly meet the criteria set out in the landmark California Supreme Court decision Klopping v. City of … Continue Reading

Three-Year Statute Of Limitations Applies To Inverse Condemnation Action

William Bookout v. State of California ex rel. Department of Transportation, 2d Civil No. B214906 (2nd Dist., June 28, 2010). By Michael Wilmar and Alex Merritt In William Bookout v. State of California ex rel. Department of Transportation, the Second District Court of Appeal provided important guidance on whether an inverse condemnation action is subject … Continue Reading

Regulatory Takings Law: Ninth Circuit Panel Holds A Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance Is Subject To A “Facial Challenge” And Awards Compensation To Property Owners

Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (9th Circuit, No. 06-56306, 9/28/2009). By Dave Lanferman and Deborah Rosenthal According to a panel of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, the City of Goleta owes compensation to mobile home park owners for economic losses resulting from the enactment of a mobile home rent control ordinance. In Guggenheim … Continue Reading

Nollan/Dolan Does Not Apply To A Facial Challenge Of A Land Use Regulation

Action Apartment Association v. City of Santa Monica (August 28, 2008, Case No. B201176)  __ Cal.App. 4th __ Plaintiff Action Apartment Association (“Action”) argued that an ordinance passed by Defendant City of Santa Monica (“City”), on its face, violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section … Continue Reading

Sea Walls Can Be Expensive: $2 Million Mitigation Fee for Loss of Shoreline Recreational Value is Not a Taking

Ocean Harbor House Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission (May 23, 2008, H031129) 163 Cal.App.4th 215. By Aaron J. Sobaski A $2 million mitigation fee based on the present value of lost present and future public shoreline recreational values and imposed by the California Coastal Commission as a condition to the issuance of a development permit … Continue Reading

Federal Claims Court Awards $4.2M to Ranchers’ Estate for Taking of Water Rights

By James Rusk The Court of Federal Claims this month awarded more than $4.2 million to the estate of Wayne and Jean Hage as compensation for the federal government’s taking of the Hages’ water rights and rangeland improvements.  Hage v. United States, No. 91-1470L (Fed. Cl. June 6, 2008).  Hage V, the latest chapter in the long-running … Continue Reading

Ripeness Doctrine And Futility Exception Both Require Submission And Denial of a “Meaningful Application”

By Donna D. Jones and Michael B. Wilmar In County of Alameda v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 4th 558 (2005), the California Court of Appeal, First District, ruled that a developer seeking to bring an inverse condemnation action may not invoke the futility exception to the ripeness doctrine until the developer has submitted a … Continue Reading
LexBlog

By scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie and Advertising Policy. If you do not wish to accept cookies from our website, or would like to stop cookies being stored on your device in the future, you can find out more and adjust your preferences here.

Agree