macdonald
sommer
frates
yolo
county
argued
march
decided
june
appellant
submitted
proposal
yolo
county
planning
commission
subdivide
certain
property
multifamily
residential
lots
commission
rejected
proposal
county
board
supervisors
affirmed
grounds
proposal
failed
provide
adequate
public
street
access
sewer
services
water
supplies
police
protection
appellant
filed
action
california
superior
alleging
appellee
county
city
restricted
property
question
agricultural
use
denying
subdivision
applications
thereby
appropriated
entire
economic
use
property
sole
purpose
providing
public
buffer
appellant
sought
declaratory
monetary
relief
sustained
demurrer
complaint
holding
appellant
factual
allegations
insufficient
monetary
damages
inverse
condemnation
foreclosed
agins
city
tiburon
cal
aff
california
appeal
affirmed
california
denied
appellant
petition
hearing
held
absent
final
authoritative
determination
county
planning
commission
apply
regulations
issue
property
question
determine
whether
taking
occurred
whether
county
failed
provide
compensation
without
knowing
nature
extent
permitted
development
adjudicate
constitutionality
regulations
purport
limit
pp
affirmed
stevens
delivered
opinion
brennan
marshall
blackmun
joined
white
filed
dissenting
opinion
burger
joined
parts
ii
iii
powell
rehnquist
joined
post
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
powell
joined
post
howard
ellman
argued
cause
appellant
briefs
gus
bauman
kenneth
burns
scott
verges
edward
macdonald
william
owen
argued
cause
appellees
brief
richard
sherwood
charles
mack
lawrence
klose
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
adirondack
park
local
government
review
board
et
al
ronald
zumbrun
robert
best
thomas
birmingham
american
college
real
estate
lawyers
robert
hetlage
eugene
morris
john
trevaskis
edward
cutler
california
building
industry
association
rex
lee
benjamin
heineman
carter
phillips
first
english
evangelical
lutheran
church
glendale
et
al
jerrold
fadem
michael
berger
lodestar
gideon
kanner
legal
foundation
john
cannon
susan
wanat
ann
plunkett
sheldon
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
city
mountain
view
et
al
peter
bulens
robert
logan
carter
stroud
albert
polonsky
campagna
robert
lanzone
mary
jo
levinger
steven
nord
duane
lyders
john
witt
hadden
roth
robert
rogers
american
farmland
trust
et
al
fred
bosselman
clifford
weaver
county
supervisors
association
california
mark
wasser
national
association
counties
et
al
benna
ruth
solomon
joyce
holmes
benjamin
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorney
general
habicht
deputy
solicitor
general
kuhl
deputy
assistant
attorney
general
marzulla
peter
steenland
state
california
ex
rel
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
et
al
van
de
kamp
richard
jacobs
gregory
taylor
theodora
berger
assistant
attorneys
general
craig
thompson
richard
frank
deputy
attorneys
general
joined
attorneys
general
respective
jurisdictions
follows
harold
brown
alaska
francis
bellotti
massachusetts
leroy
zimmerman
pennsylvania
charles
oberly
iii
delaware
jim
smith
florida
su
esu
lutu
american
samoa
leroy
mercer
virgin
islands
richard
opper
guam
corinne
watanabe
hawaii
james
jones
idaho
neil
hartigan
illinois
linley
pearson
indiana
thomas
miller
iowa
william
guste
louisiana
james
tierney
maine
stephen
sachs
maryland
frank
kelley
michigan
william
webster
missouri
jeffrey
amestoy
vermont
hubert
humphrey
iii
minnesota
robert
abrams
new
york
travis
medlock
south
carolina
jim
maddox
texas
david
wilkenson
utah
kenneth
eikenberry
washington
bronson
la
follette
wisconsin
archie
mcclintock
wyoming
national
institute
municipal
law
officers
et
al
roy
bates
william
thornton
john
witt
roger
cutler
george
agnost
lamar
shelley
robert
alfton
james
baker
frank
gummey
iii
james
montgomery
clifford
pierce
william
taube
charles
rhyne
conservation
foundation
et
al
charles
siemon
wendy
larsen
christopher
duerksen
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
question
presented
whether
rejection
subdivision
proposal
deprived
appellant
property
without
compensation
contrary
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
constitution
appeal
taken
judgment
sustaining
demurrer
property
owner
complaint
money
damages
alleged
taking
property
appellant
submitted
tentative
subdivision
map
yolo
county
planning
commission
appellant
proposal
subject
property
least
part
planted
corn
subdivided
multifamily
residential
lots
yolo
county
planning
commission
rejected
subdivision
plan
however
board
supervisors
county
affirmed
determination
board
found
numerous
reasons
appellant
tentative
subdivision
map
neither
consistent
general
plan
county
yolo
specific
plan
county
yolo
embodied
zoning
regulations
county
app
appellant
focuses
attention
four
reasons
see
fourth
amended
complaint
first
board
criticized
plan
failed
provide
access
proposed
subdivision
public
street
city
davis
subdivision
adjoin
refused
permit
extension
cowell
boulevard
development
see
even
ignoring
obstacle
map
presented
de
provision
means
access
subdivision
board
calculated
relying
extension
cowell
boulevard
alone
constitut
real
substantial
danger
public
health
event
fire
earthquake
flood
natural
disaster
second
board
found
appellant
tentative
map
presented
provide
sewer
service
governmental
entity
means
provision
sewer
services
el
macero
interceptor
sewer
require
proposed
subdivision
anne
existing
community
services
area
said
annexation
subject
local
agency
formation
commission
jurisdiction
board
finds
proceedings
currently
pending
lafco
annexation
proposed
subdivision
rebuff
appellant
filed
present
action
day
petition
writ
mandate
mandate
action
still
pending
seeks
set
aside
board
decision
direct
board
reconsider
appellant
subdivision
proposal
see
amended
petition
writ
mandate
action
contrast
seeks
declaratory
monetary
relief
appellant
accuses
appellees
county
yolo
city
davis
restricting
property
agricultural
use
denying
permit
applications
subdivision
maps
requests
implement
use
thereby
appropriating
entire
economic
use
appellant
property
sole
purpose
providing
public
buffer
particular
fourth
amended
complaint
challenges
board
decision
respect
adequacy
public
access
sanitation
services
water
supplies
fire
police
protection
appellees
denied
services
according
complaint
none
beneficial
uses
allowed
even
agricultural
land
suitable
appellant
property
complaint
alleged
capital
letters
without
limitation
foregoing
enumeration
application
zone
change
variance
relief
futile
complaint
also
alleged
appellant
exhausted
administrative
remedies
seven
causes
action
ripe
adjudication
response
charges
appellees
demurred
pointing
earlier
order
sustaining
demurrers
granting
leave
amend
california
superior
contended
property
obvious
uses
agriculture
yolo
county
code
referenced
sections
permitting
uses
among
others
ranch
farm
dwellings
agricultural
storage
facilities
see
yolo
county
code
rejected
appellant
attemp
overcome
defect
alleging
conclusionary
fact
every
principal
use
every
multiple
accessory
use
longer
possible
property
value
zoned
app
concluded
irrespective
insufficiency
appellant
factual
allegations
monetary
damages
inverse
condemnation
foreclosed
california
decision
agins
city
tiburon
cal
aff
app
california
appeal
affirmed
accept
ed
true
properly
pled
factual
allegations
complaint
consider
whether
complaint
barred
failure
exhaust
administrative
remedies
res
judicata
ou
nd
decision
agins
controlling
herein
case
california
specifically
clearly
established
policy
reasons
rule
law
precludes
landowner
recovering
inverse
condemnation
based
upon
land
use
regulation
emphasize
hold
regulation
amount
taking
without
compensation
simply
held
event
remedy
inverse
condemnation
remedy
instead
action
regulation
set
aside
unconstitutional
plaintiff
filed
mandate
action
trial
currently
pending
proper
remedy
claim
inverse
condemnation
maintained
citation
omitted
event
even
inverse
condemnation
action
available
land
use
regulation
situation
constrained
hold
plaintiff
failed
state
cause
action
pared
essence
allegations
plaintiff
purchased
property
residential
development
property
zoned
residential
development
plaintiff
submitted
application
approval
development
property
residential
units
part
urging
city
county
denied
approval
application
allegations
plaintiff
unlike
plaintiffs
agins
case
california
held
plaintiffs
failed
allege
facts
establish
unconstitutional
taking
private
property
plaintiff
claim
must
fail
reasons
claims
agins
failed
plaintiff
applied
approval
particular
relatively
intensive
residential
development
application
denied
denial
particular
plan
equated
refusal
permit
development
plaintiff
concedes
property
zoned
residential
purposes
county
general
plan
zoning
ordinance
land
use
planning
proposition
governmental
entity
required
permit
landowner
develop
property
full
extent
might
desire
charged
unconstitutional
taking
property
agins
refusal
defendants
permit
intensive
development
desired
landowner
preclude
less
intensive
still
valuable
development
accordingly
complaint
fails
state
cause
action
citation
omitted
ii
regulatory
takings
claim
advanced
appellant
two
components
first
appellant
must
establish
regulation
substance
taken
property
regulation
goes
far
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
see
kaiser
aetna
second
appellant
must
demonstrate
proffered
compensation
follows
nature
regulatory
takings
claim
essential
prerequisite
assertion
final
authoritative
determination
type
intensity
development
legally
permitted
subject
property
determine
whether
regulation
gone
far
unless
knows
far
regulation
goes
justice
holmes
emphasized
throughout
opinion
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
question
degree
therefore
disposed
general
propositions
accord
day
set
formula
determine
regulation
ends
taking
begins
goldblatt
hempstead
instead
rely
much
exercise
judgment
application
logic
andrus
allard
cases
accordingly
examined
taking
question
engaging
essentially
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
identified
several
factors
economic
impact
regulation
interference
reasonable
expectations
character
governmental
action
particular
significance
kaiser
aetna
see
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
central
eureka
mining
question
properly
turning
upon
particular
circumstances
case
property
owner
obtained
final
decision
regarding
application
zoning
ordinance
subdivision
regulations
property
impossible
tell
whether
land
retain
reasonable
beneficial
use
whether
existing
expectation
interests
ha
destroyed
williamson
planning
hamilton
bank
explained
last
term
difficult
problem
define
far
distinguish
point
regulation
becomes
onerous
effect
appropriation
property
eminent
domain
physical
possession
esolution
question
depends
significant
part
upon
analysis
effect
commission
application
zoning
ordinance
subdivision
regulations
value
respondent
property
profit
expectation
effect
measured
final
decision
made
regulations
applied
respondent
property
omitted
similar
reasons
determine
whether
municipality
failed
provide
compensation
knows
compensation
responsible
administrative
body
intends
provide
see
state
action
complete
state
fails
provide
adequate
compensation
taking
omitted
local
agencies
charged
administering
regulations
governing
property
development
singularly
flexible
institutions
take
one
hand
may
give
back
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
example
recognized
landmarks
preservation
commission
administrative
body
primarily
responsible
administering
new
york
city
landmarks
preservation
law
authority
appropriate
circumstances
authorize
alterations
remit
taxes
transfer
development
rights
ensure
landmark
owner
reasonable
return
property
see
railroad
sought
approval
construction
smaller
structure
proposed
story
office
building
see
development
rights
airspace
grand
central
station
terminal
transferable
least
eight
parcels
vicinity
terminal
one
two
ha
found
suitable
construction
new
office
building
concluded
application
new
york
city
landmarks
law
ha
effected
taking
railroad
property
whether
inquiry
asks
regulation
gone
far
whether
seeks
determine
proffered
compensation
answer
possible
knows
use
may
made
affected
property
cases
uniformly
reflect
insistence
knowing
nature
extent
permitted
development
adjudicating
constitutionality
regulations
purport
limit
thus
agins
tiburon
held
zoning
ordinances
authorized
development
one
five
residences
appellants
tract
effect
taking
property
face
appellants
made
application
improvements
property
constitutionality
particular
application
ordinances
properly
us
see
similarly
san
diego
gas
electric
san
diego
dismissed
appeal
appear
city
rezoning
adoption
open
space
plan
deprived
utility
beneficial
use
property
see
california
appeal
decided
whether
taking
fact
ha
occurred
proceedings
necessary
resolve
federal
question
whether
taking
consequence
judgment
final
purposes
jurisdiction
ibid
recently
williamson
planning
hamilton
bank
held
developer
failure
either
seek
variances
allowed
develop
property
accordance
proposed
plat
avail
available
facially
adequate
state
procedure
might
obtain
compensation
meant
regulatory
taking
claim
premature
comparison
situations
property
owners
three
preceding
cases
appellant
submitted
one
subdivision
proposal
received
board
response
thereto
nevertheless
appellant
still
yet
receive
board
final
definitive
position
regarding
apply
regulations
issue
particular
land
question
williamson
planning
hamilton
bank
agins
san
diego
gas
electric
williamson
planning
declined
reach
question
whether
constitution
requires
monetary
remedy
redress
regulatory
takings
records
cases
left
us
uncertain
whether
property
issue
fact
taken
likewise
case
holdings
courts
leave
open
possibility
development
permitted
thus
leave
us
doubt
regarding
antecedent
question
whether
appellant
property
taken
judgment
therefore
affirmed
footnotes
determining
plaintiff
land
used
agricultural
purposes
notwithstanding
general
planning
zoning
designation
residential
use
suitability
therefor
county
determined
property
lacked
access
means
suitable
public
streets
condition
resulting
city
deliberate
refusal
permit
approve
available
access
ii
roperty
lacked
sanitary
sewer
service
condition
resulting
directly
wrongful
acts
city
county
district
alleged
iii
property
lacked
adequate
water
supply
finding
directly
contrary
fact
evidence
county
proven
sources
supply
property
vicinity
thereof
serve
immediately
adjacent
residential
areas
iv
property
lacked
adequate
fire
police
services
conditions
attributable
part
refusal
part
county
city
provide
services
app
california
factual
allegations
complaint
properly
pleaded
deemed
admitted
defendant
demurrer
thompson
county
alameda
cal
however
demurrer
admit
contentions
deductions
conclusions
fact
law
alleged
therein
daar
yellow
cab
cal
citations
omitted
see
serrano
priest
cal
chicago
title
ins
great
western
financial
cal
sych
insurance
north
america
cal
app
cal
rptr
read
city
lynwood
cal
app
cal
rptr
thus
one
intermediate
california
appellate
sustained
demurrer
complaint
alleging
regulatory
taking
jurisdictional
grounds
notwithstanding
allegation
appellants
complaint
exhausted
administrative
remedies
demurrer
admits
material
facts
properly
pleaded
admit
conclusions
fact
law
alleged
therein
appellants
conclusionary
statement
exhausted
administrative
remedies
therefore
avail
pan
pacific
properties
county
santa
cruz
cal
app
cal
rptr
citation
omitted
cf
hecton
people
ex
rel
dept
transportation
cal
app
cal
rptr
allegations
taking
damage
understand
superior
sustained
demurrer
complaint
failed
properly
plead
facts
amounting
taking
california
law
provide
monetary
remedy
regulatory
taking
superior
explaining
two
reasons
concluded
simply
complaint
fails
state
proper
cause
action
inverse
condemnation
app
although
justice
white
dissent
treats
first
reason
dicta
second
actual
basis
decision
see
post
since
superior
rest
holding
one
two
stated
reasons
appropriate
treat
alternative
bases
decision
answer
appellant
claim
california
appeal
similarly
held
monetary
judgment
foreclosed
agins
ven
cause
action
monetary
damages
stated
civil
rights
act
based
upon
regulation
use
property
allegations
insufficient
case
plaintiff
seeks
compensation
county
refused
approval
intensive
development
desires
refusal
mean
less
intensive
uses
also
denied
accordingly
plaintiff
alleged
facts
sufficient
establish
uncompensated
taking
property
app
accept
purposes
deciding
case
taking
public
purpose
alleged
complaint
see
see
also
property
owner
course
required
resort
piecemeal
litigation
otherwise
unfair
procedures
order
obtain
determination
see
williamson
planning
hamilton
bank
stevens
concurring
judgment
dickinson
appellant
current
complaint
authoritatively
construed
california
appeal
alleged
denial
one
intense
type
residential
development
appellant
contend
improvements
along
lines
subdivision
plan
avert
regulatory
taking
rather
complaint
alleged
appellant
deprived
beneficial
use
property
see
app
california
appeal
whose
opinion
matters
local
law
local
pleading
must
respect
cf
agins
tiburon
apparently
rejected
superior
labeled
conclusionary
allegation
futility
explained
appellant
seek
administrative
application
yolo
county
general
plan
zoning
ordinances
property
aught
appears
allow
development
proceed
justice
white
dissent
reluctantly
concludes
understanding
appeal
decision
plausible
sensible
insists
appeal
decision
properly
read
taking
true
allegations
complaint
including
allegations
futility
rejecting
allegations
insufficient
matter
substantive
takings
law
post
disagree
state
courts
upheld
appellees
demurrer
ground
development
foreclosed
thus
superior
apparently
accepted
appellant
submission
property
restricted
agricultural
use
held
even
valuable
use
might
still
made
land
appeal
unwilling
concede
even
much
noted
appellant
property
zoned
residential
held
valuable
residential
development
open
holdings
total
prohibition
productive
use
appellant
land
possibly
reconciled
allegations
complaint
beneficial
use
precluded
app
future
applications
futile
view
fact
allegations
necessarily
rejected
state
courts
parties
briefs
disclose
permissible
basis
disposition
settled
california
demurrer
law
see
supra
see
also
brief
respondents
civil
cal
ct
third
app
july
pp
memorandum
points
authorities
support
demurrer
fourth
amended
complaint
cal
super
yolo
county
clerk
pp
matter
state
courts
neglected
expressly
disapprove
deficient
allegations
detail
particular
reasons
see
post
remarkably
dissent
implies
appeal
accepted
complaint
allegations
local
regulations
denied
appellant
beneficial
use
property
regulatory
proceedings
fruitless
nonetheless
required
file
useless
applications
state
taking
claim
ibid
whatever
purpose
requirement
might
serve
futile
reapplications
contemplated
appeal
begin
requirement
dissent
maintains
suggested
appeal
reliance
decisions
california
agins
see
app
contrary
appeal
relied
decisions
agins
illustrate
property
owners
attempt
ed
obtain
approval
develop
land
accordance
applicable
zoning
regulations
reason
failed
allege
facts
establish
unconstitutional
taking
private
property
see
cal
implication
future
applications
futile
meaningful
application
yet
made
dissent
supposition
appeal
accepted
allegations
taking
futility
contradicted
express
denial
submission
less
intensive
application
futile
refusal
appellees
permit
intensive
development
desired
landowner
preclude
less
intensive
still
valuable
development
app
appellant
thus
position
agins
occupied
requested
denied
opportunity
build
five
victorian
mansions
residences
san
diego
gas
electric
asked
denied
option
building
nuclear
powerplant
rejection
exceedingly
grandiose
development
plans
logically
imply
less
ambitious
plans
receive
similarly
unfavorable
reviews
case
course
statements
courts
dispelling
doubt
point
justice
white
chief
justice
joins
justice
powell
justice
rehnquist
join
parts
ii
iii
dissenting
acknowledges
noted
probable
jurisdiction
case
ecause
importance
question
whether
monetary
remedy
inverse
condemnation
constitutionally
required
appropriate
cases
involving
regulatory
takings
ante
avoids
issue
holding
antecedent
question
whether
appellant
adequately
stated
takings
claim
answered
negative
disagree
factual
allegations
must
consider
opinion
correctly
read
state
takings
claim
therefore
present
remedial
question
thrice
sought
resolve
see
williamson
county
regional
planning
hamilton
bank
san
diego
gas
electric
san
diego
agins
tiburon
recognizes
complaint
alleged
appellant
deprived
beneficial
use
property
ante
concludes
california
appeal
whose
opinion
matters
local
law
local
pleading
must
respect
cf
agins
tiburon
apparently
rejected
superior
labeled
conclusionary
allegation
futility
explained
appellant
seek
administrative
application
yolo
county
general
plan
zoning
ordinances
property
aught
appears
allow
development
proceed
ibid
view
fairly
read
record
opinion
appellant
initial
complaint
filed
superior
alleged
although
property
zoned
residential
use
county
designated
agricultural
preserve
reserve
city
complaint
alleged
even
though
property
lay
county
outside
city
boundaries
county
implemented
city
policy
relegating
land
agricultural
uses
see
complaint
pp
finally
complaint
asserted
property
agriculturally
impaired
economically
used
agricultural
purposes
see
sustaining
appellees
demurrer
complaint
superior
accepted
true
allegation
property
effectively
rezoned
agricultural
noted
allegation
property
used
variety
nonagricultural
purposes
explicitly
allowed
agricultural
zones
county
city
codes
see
order
mar
cal
super
yolo
county
pp
conclusion
failure
allege
property
question
useless
permitted
purposes
agricultural
zone
agricultural
use
renders
inverse
condemnation
cause
action
demurrable
fourth
amended
complaint
complaint
formed
basis
judgment
appellant
responded
earlier
ruling
specifically
alleging
property
suitable
uses
permitted
agricultural
zone
asserting
facts
support
allegation
see
app
superior
however
indicated
found
allegations
conclusionary
although
rely
determination
sustaining
demurrer
complaint
relying
instead
california
general
ruling
agins
city
tiburon
cal
aff
grounds
inverse
condemnation
action
may
brought
result
land
use
regulation
crucial
fact
superior
denominated
conclusionary
allegations
complaint
rejected
possibility
feasible
nonagricultural
uses
property
consistent
agricultural
zoning
categorize
conclusionary
appellant
allegations
economically
beneficial
residential
uses
foreclosed
appellees
actions
reviewing
superior
ruling
demurrer
fourth
amended
complaint
california
appeal
first
noted
consider
whether
complaint
barred
failure
exhaust
administrative
remedies
res
judicata
app
summarized
allegations
complaint
including
allegations
property
suitable
agricultural
use
uses
permitted
county
code
suitable
residential
use
county
city
acted
prevent
use
entirely
appeal
also
noted
appellant
alleged
ny
application
zone
change
variance
relief
futile
nowhere
state
matter
california
demurrer
law
rejecting
allegations
properly
pleaded
nowhere
refer
superior
statement
allegations
infeasibility
nonagricultural
uses
consistent
agricultural
zoning
might
properly
pleaded
recited
allegations
without
indicating
rejecting
appeal
first
held
cause
action
stated
inverse
condemnation
holding
noted
compelled
california
ruling
agins
remedy
takings
alleged
result
land
use
regulation
see
agins
cal
alternative
however
appeal
found
even
cause
action
available
appellant
stated
takings
claim
concluded
ared
essence
allegations
appellant
purchased
property
residential
development
property
zoned
residential
development
appellant
submitted
application
approval
development
property
residential
units
part
urging
city
county
denied
approval
application
app
observed
situation
unlike
agins
zoning
ordinance
restricted
landowner
five
acres
building
maximum
five
residences
property
found
constitute
taking
since
face
ordinance
still
allowed
level
development
reasonable
use
property
see
agins
agins
cal
citing
agins
appeal
determined
appellant
stated
takings
cause
action
appellees
refusal
allow
intensive
development
requested
appellant
preclude
less
intensive
still
valuable
development
app
view
given
absence
expression
disapproval
appeal
appellant
allegations
summarized
opinion
given
fact
superior
labeled
appellant
allegations
futility
conclusionary
reason
read
last
statement
appeal
ruling
allegations
futility
well
pleaded
instead
appeal
focus
termed
essence
appellant
complaint
together
conclusion
respect
essential
allegations
case
analytically
agins
imply
believed
matter
federal
takings
law
certain
allegations
controlled
terms
determining
takings
claim
stated
specifically
concluding
allegations
futility
material
determining
agins
application
must
made
takings
claim
stated
appeal
held
takings
cause
action
stated
reapplication
made
even
application
useless
ii
whether
regulatory
taking
occurred
inquiry
completed
final
decision
made
allegedly
confiscatory
regulations
apply
pertinent
property
williamson
county
regional
planning
thus
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
agins
supra
considered
takings
purposes
actual
regulatory
decision
made
governmental
decisionmaker
declined
speculate
restrictions
might
imposed
hodel
virginia
surface
mining
reclamation
refused
consider
takings
claim
based
general
regulatory
provisions
yet
applied
specific
properties
susceptible
administrative
exemption
recently
williamson
county
regional
planning
determined
denial
particular
use
property
constitute
final
decision
variance
procedures
available
left
open
possibility
landowner
may
develop
subdivision
according
plat
obtaining
variances
holdings
recognize
regulatory
takings
determination
closely
tied
facts
particular
case
often
ongoing
process
relevant
regulatory
decisions
made
given
characteristics
regulatory
taking
final
decision
requirement
necessary
ensure
initial
decisionmaker
arrived
definitive
position
issue
inflicts
actual
concrete
injury
nothing
cases
however
suggests
decisionmaker
definitive
position
may
determined
explicit
denials
applications
development
cases
suggest
repeated
applications
denials
necessary
pinpoint
position
moreover
see
reason
importing
requirement
final
decision
analysis
decisionmaker
definitive
position
may
sometimes
determined
factors
actual
decision
issue
question
example
landowner
applies
develop
land
relatively
intensive
manner
consistent
applicable
zoning
requirements
governmental
body
denies
application
explaining
development
barred
interpretation
zoning
ordinance
find
final
decision
barring
development
made
even
though
landowner
apply
less
intensive
development
although
landowner
must
pursue
reasonably
available
avenues
might
allow
relief
need
believe
take
patently
fruitless
measures
appeal
reliance
agins
case
therefore
misplaced
appellant
alleged
simply
application
denied
overall
effect
denial
reasons
given
denial
actions
taken
appellees
prevent
appellant
ever
able
meet
county
development
requirements
appellant
property
taken
appeal
purported
reduce
appellant
claim
essence
ignored
critical
distinction
agins
indication
upon
application
property
owner
allowed
develop
property
economically
beneficial
manner
factual
situation
application
allegedly
futile
case
believe
appellant
sufficiently
alleged
final
decision
denying
reasonable
economically
beneficial
use
property
iii
assuming
appellant
adequately
alleged
final
decision
next
question
whether
takings
cause
action
stated
allegations
complaint
discerning
answer
question
involves
two
separate
inquiries
whether
land
use
regulation
restricting
use
property
may
ever
amount
taking
answer
first
inquiry
affirmative
whether
allegations
sufficient
state
takings
claim
first
question
cases
long
indicated
regulations
may
rise
level
taking
restrictions
impose
sufficiently
severe
see
agins
prune
yard
shopping
center
robins
kaiser
aetna
andrus
allard
penn
central
supra
central
eureka
mining
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
nevertheless
california
agins
concluded
landowner
alleging
zoning
ordinance
deprived
substantially
use
land
may
attempt
declaratory
relief
mandamus
invalidate
ordinance
excessive
regulation
violation
fifth
amendment
constitution
may
however
elect
sue
inverse
condemnation
thereby
transmute
excessive
use
police
power
lawful
taking
compensation
eminent
domain
must
paid
cal
olice
power
regulations
zoning
ordinances
restrictions
destroy
use
enjoyment
property
order
promote
public
good
effectively
formal
condemnation
physical
invasion
property
property
owner
point
view
may
matter
little
whether
land
condemned
flooded
whether
restricted
regulation
use
natural
state
effect
cases
deprive
beneficial
use
government
point
view
benefits
flowing
public
preservation
open
space
regulation
may
equally
great
creating
wildlife
refuge
formal
condemnation
increasing
electricity
production
dam
project
floods
private
property
logical
government
action
acquisition
title
occupancy
physical
invasion
taking
therefore
de
facto
exercise
power
eminent
domain
effects
completely
deprive
owner
interest
property
citations
footnotes
omitted
resolution
general
question
brings
specific
question
whether
allegations
complaint
sufficient
state
takings
claim
appellant
alleged
existence
final
decision
denying
economically
beneficial
use
property
also
alleged
paid
good
valuable
consideration
app
property
factual
allegations
interference
reasonable
expectations
denial
economically
feasible
use
property
certainly
sufficient
allegations
regulatory
taking
state
cause
action
see
penn
central
consequently
hold
appellant
adequately
alleged
taking
iv
final
question
presented
whether
state
limit
declaratory
injunctive
relief
remedies
available
person
whose
property
taken
regulation
whether
state
must
pay
compensation
interim
period
time
government
first
took
property
time
taking
rescinded
amendment
regulation
question
substantial
agreement
justice
brennan
discussion
san
diego
gas
see
even
property
owner
deprived
property
temporarily
deprivation
amounts
taking
constitution
requires
compensation
paid
governmental
body
taken
property
decides
rescind
taking
amending
regulation
reverse
fact
property
owner
deprived
property
interim
fair
public
bear
cost
benefits
received
interim
period
application
regulation
government
entity
rescission
thus
compensation
must
available
period
time
final
decision
taking
property
time
decision
rescinded
recognize
constitutional
rule
admits
problems
administration
means
insignificant
aside
problems
already
addressed
measure
regarding
determination
taking
shall
deemed
occurred
questions
valuation
procedure
latter
constitution
requires
particular
procedures
although
today
notes
property
owner
course
required
resort
piecemeal
litigation
otherwise
unfair
procedures
order
obtain
determination
ante
former
issue
constitutes
compensation
context
particularly
meaty
one
merits
substantial
reflection
analysis
nevertheless
unsettled
questions
deter
us
acting
protect
constitutional
requirements
type
case
consequently
vacate
judgment
remand
proceedings
inconsistent
views
expressed
sum
believe
appeal
decision
properly
read
taking
true
allegations
complaint
including
allegations
futility
rejecting
allegations
insufficient
matter
substantive
takings
law
least
reading
opinion
however
plausible
sensible
reading
opinion
given
arguable
ambiguity
withdraw
appellant
chance
relief
stage
appeal
fact
reach
judgment
reasoning
summarized
rather
hypothesizes
appellant
precluded
seeking
relief
facts
currently
alleged
complaint
least
vacate
judgment
remand
explanation
appeal
precise
basis
judgment
superior
also
sustained
demurrer
ground
appellant
failed
exhaust
administrative
judicial
remedies
county
denial
appellant
subdivision
application
res
judicata
subject
collateral
attack
superior
taking
form
actual
invasion
appropriation
cognizably
valuable
property
right
alleged
app
emphasize
futility
application
proved
trial
appellant
prevail
merits
address
question
whether
appellant
allegations
futility
sufficient
support
assuming
final
decision
made
although
california
ruling
agins
rests
rationale
excessive
land
use
regulation
simply
constitute
lawful
taking
appeal
case
seemed
proceed
assumption
regulation
constitute
taking
inverse
condemnation
remedy
taking
available
see
app
discussion
follows
reasoning
given
california
agins
rather
somewhat
inexact
summary
reasoning
given
appeal
assume
normal
action
governmental
entity
following
determination
particular
regulation
constitutes
taking
rescind
regulation
believe
permissible
course
action
limiting
liability
taking
interim
period
see
san
diego
gas
electric
san
diego
brennan
dissenting
course
governmental
entity
actually
condemn
property
pay
permanent
compensation
justice
rehnquist
justice
powell
joins
dissenting
agree
justice
white
appeal
opinion
best
read
rejecting
appellant
allegations
matter
substantive
takings
law
appellant
sufficiently
alleged
final
decision
denying
beneficial
use
property
land
use
regulation
restricting
use
property
may
amount
taking
allegations
sufficient
state
takings
claim
accordingly
join
parts
ii
iii
dissenting
opinion
justice
white
recognizes
part
iv
opinion
questions
surrounding
compensation
due
property
owner
context
interim
takings
multifaceted
difficult
reach
questions
without
first
permitting
courts
address
light
fact
appellant
sufficiently
alleged
taking