§Why CasetextPricing

LYNCH v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Amicus Curiae Brief of American Planning Association and American Planning Association California Chapter

54 Cited authorities

  1. Williamson Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank

    473 U.S. 172 (1985)   Cited 2,713 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause [of the United States Constitution] until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation”

  2. City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.

    526 U.S. 687 (1999)   Cited 1,419 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is settled law that the Seventh Amendment does not apply" in "suits seeking only injunctive relief" or suits seeking only equitable relief

  3. WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller

    104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 4,863 times
    Holding that finality requires a further order of dismissal upon expiration of leave to amend

  4. Dolan v. City of Tigard

    512 U.S. 374 (1994)   Cited 800 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding that compelled dedication of an easement for public use would constitute a taking

  5. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n

    483 U.S. 825 (1987)   Cited 925 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a development exaction to be constitutional, there must be an "essential nexus" between the valid state interest and the permit condition

  6. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.

    570 U.S. 595 (2013)   Cited 296 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court could not condition the grant of land use permits upon the applicant's funding of offsite mitigation projects on public land

  7. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (Air Resources Board)

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 585 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it would be improper to take judicial notice of evidence that was both absent from the administrative record and not before the agency at the time of its decision because such evidence is not relevant

  8. Hensler v. City of Glendale

    8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 302 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting claim that a compensable taking of plaintiff's property necessarily occurred when ordinance was enacted because plaintiff conceded the ordinance "did not deny him all economically feasible use of the property"

  9. Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz

    484 U.S. 1043 (1988)   Cited 111 times
    Holding that civil judgments are not "usable in subsequent proceedings as evidence of the facts underlying the judgment; for as to those facts, the judgment is hearsay"

  10. Southern Pacific v. City of Los Angeles

    922 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 250 times
    Holding that claims dismissed on ripeness grounds should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction

  11. Section 3521 - Burden borne by one taking benefit

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3521   Cited 142 times
    Providing "he who takes the benefit must bear the burden," italics added

  12. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)