39 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Ripeness: Determining when a land use case can be filed.

    Dalton & Tomich, PLCDaniel P. DaltonJuly 20, 2016

    Murphy, 402 F.3d 342, 347 (2d Cir. 2005).In Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), the Supreme Court created a two pronged ripeness test for the Fifth Amendment takings context: (1) the government entity must have rendered a “final decision” on the matter; and (2) the plaintiff must have “sought just compensation by means of an available state procedure.” Dougherty, 282 F.3d at 88 (quoting Williamson, 473 U.S. at 186, 194-95).

  2. Supreme Court Poised to Overrule Requirement that Takings Claims be Filed In State Court

    Beveridge & Diamond PCJames SlaughterMarch 15, 2018

    granted, 2018 WL 1143827 (March 5, 2018). The Court will reconsider its 1985 holding in Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, that required property owners to exhaust State court remedies in order to pursue a federal takings claim. A Pennsylvania property owner is asking the Court to overrule Williamson County’s State litigation ripeness doctrine so that citizens may bring a takings claim for just compensation under the U.S. Constitution directly in federal court.

  3. U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Requesting Reconsideration of Williamson County’s Unfair and Unworkable State Court Exhaustion Requirement

    Miller Starr RegaliaBryan Wenter, AICPMarch 8, 2018

    On March 5, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Knick v. Township of Scott (Case No. 17-647) to address the requirement, established in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194-96 (1985), that landowners must first unsuccessfully seek compensation in state court before bringing a Fifth Amendment takings claim in federal court. No other category of plaintiffs desiring to vindicate their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is subject to this onerous requirement.

  4. U.S. Supreme Court Decides Landmark Condemnation Case In Favor Of Property Owners

    Roetzel & AndressJuly 26, 2019

    Rose Mary Knick, whose 90-acre rural property has a small family graveyard, was notified that she was violating the ordinance. Knick filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania under the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the ordinance violated the Takings Clause.The District Court dismissed Knick’s claim on the authority of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108. In Williamson County, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a property developer’s federal takings claim was premature because he had not sought compensation through the state’s inverse condemnation procedure.

  5. Supreme Court Takes Back Takings: Knick v. Township of Scott

    Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLPJuly 24, 2019

    The Supreme Court recently issued its long-awaited ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott, concluding that a plaintiff alleging that local governments have violated the Takings Clause under the Fifth Amendment may seek relief directly in federal court, as a constitutional violation occurs at the time of the taking without payment, even if just compensation is subsequently paid. In the 5-4 majority opinion, the Court overruled, in part, Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), a 34-year old precedent that established a federal claim was not ripe until a state takings plaintiff exhausted its remedies under state law. The decision, among other things, eliminates the “Catch 22” dilemma created by Williamson in which a state judgment denying the takings claim precluded the federal claim from ever becoming ripe because of the preclusive effect of the state judgment under the federal full faith and credit statute (28 U.S.C. §1738).

  6. Supreme Court Takes Back Takings: Knick v. Township of Scott

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPYvette MabbunJuly 23, 2019

    The Supreme Court recently issued its long-awaited ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott, concluding that a plaintiff alleging that local governments have violated the Takings Clause under the Fifth Amendment may seek relief directly in federal court, as a constitutional violation occurs at the time of the taking without payment, even if just compensation is subsequently paid.[1] In the 5-4 majority opinion, the Court overruled, in part, Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), a 34-year old precedent that established a federal claim was not ripe until a state takings plaintiff exhausted its remedies under state law. The decision, among other things, eliminates the “Catch 22” dilemma created by Williamson in which a state judgment denying the takings claim precluded the federal claim from ever becoming ripe because of the preclusive effect of the state judgment under the federal full faith and credit statute (28 U.S.C. §1738).

  7. A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

    Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate LawJuly 9, 2019

    cond Circuit’s decision that the Attorney General’s authority, delegated to the Attorney General by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), to specify by rule that the Act’s registration requirements, apply in full to pre-Act offenders, is consistent with the nondelegation doctrine of the Court. The manifest consequences of the rule on “pre-Act” offenders is pretty significant, and the power vested in the Attorney General has caused concern with four Justices. Few cases have overturned an act of Congress on the basis of an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, but some Justices may now be looking for an appropriate case to revisit these arguments.Takings Claim Rebuffed – Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania On June 21, 2019, the Court decided a takings case, vacating in a 5-4 opinion the Third Circuit’s decision affirming the lower court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s takings claim must be dismissed in accordance with a 1985 Supreme Court ruling, Williamson County Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 US 172 (1985). Scott Township passed an ordinance requiring that all cemeteries must be kept open and accessible to the public during daylight hours.

  8. US Supreme Court Allows Greater Access to Federal Courts for Taking Cases

    Clark Hill PLCJuly 1, 2019

    In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed many years of precedent to allow property owners to proceed directly to federal court to pursue takings claims against state and local governments.According to the Fifth Amendment of the federal Constitution, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Williamson Planning Comm'n v Hamilton Bank, 473 US 172 (1985), held that the Fifth Amendment was not implicated until there was both a taking of private property and a denial of just compensation.Williamson County noted that “because the Fifth Amendment proscribes takings without just compensation, no constitutional violation occurs until just compensation has been denied.”Additionally, a line of cases beginning in 1890 held that governments need not pay compensation when property rights are taken if there is a “reasonable, certain, and adequate” procedure for relief.

  9. Property Owners May Now Bring Takings Claims Directly To Federal Court

    Husch Blackwell LLPJune 28, 2019

    Property owners may now bring a regulatory takings or inverse condemnation claim in federal court without first exhausting state court remedies, overruling Williamson County.On June 21, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that property owners who have had their property taken by state or local governments without compensation may file a Fifth Amendment takings claim in federal court without first having to exhaust remedies in state court. The decision, Knick v Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, overruled Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, an oft-criticized precedent that required takings claims to first be heard in state court.Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, a property owner has a “takings” claim against the government when government action (such as a regulation) goes too far in restricting the owner’s use. Williamson County created two procedural prerequisites to bringing a takings claims in federal court: (1) the “final decision” requirement, holding that the government had to have made a final decision on what uses were allowed to the owner under the government regulation; and (2) the owner must have been denied compensation by the government, and sued the government in state court first (the “state litigation” requirement).

  10. SCOTUS Decision: Property Owners Can Bring Takings Claims Straight to Federal Court

    Jackson WalkerSteven DimittJune 28, 2019

    Rather, “[a] property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it.” The Court expressly overruled its prior holding in Williams County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), which required a property owner to first seek compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim in federal court. In Knick, the Court held that “the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled.”