|
<br />Page 8 of 10
<br />
<br />general land-use regulations has denied *263 appellants the "justice and fairness" guaranteed
<br />by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. **2143 SeePenn Central Transp. Co. v. New York
<br />City, 438 U.S., at 124, 98 S.Ct., at 2659. [FN9]
<br />
<br />FN9. Appellants also claim that the city's precondemnation activities constitute a taking. See
<br />nn. 1, 3, and 5, supra. The State Supreme Court correctly rejected the contention that the
<br />municipality's good-faith planning activities, which did not result in successful prosecution of an
<br />eminent domain claim, so burdened the appellants' enjoyment of their property as to constitute
<br />a taking. See also City of Walnut Creek v. Leadership Housing Systems, Inc., 73 Cal.App.3d
<br />611,620-624, 140 Cal.Rptr. 690, 695-697 (1977). Even if the appellants' ability to sell their
<br />property was limited during the pendency of the condemnation proceeding, the appellants
<br />were free to sell or develop their property when the proceedings ended. Mere fluctuations in
<br />value during the process of
<br />governmental decisionmaking, absent extraordinary delay, are "incidents of ownership. They
<br />cannot be considered as a 'taking' in the constitutional sense." Danforth v. United States, 308
<br />U.S. 271,285, 60 S.Ct. 231,236, 84 L.Ed. 240 (1939). See Thomas W. Garland, Inc. v. City of
<br />St. Louis, 596 F.2d 784, 787 (CA8), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 899, 100 S.Ct. 208, 62 L.Ed.2d 135
<br />(1979); Reservation Eleven Associates v. District of Columbia, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 311, 315-
<br />316,420 F.2d 153, 157-158 (1969); Virgin Islands v. 50.05 Acres of Land, 185 F.Supp. 495,
<br />498 (V.1.1960); 2 J. Sackman & P. Rohan, Nichols' Law of Eminent Domain ~ 6.13[3] (3d ed.
<br />1979). .
<br />
<br />III
<br />The State Supreme Court determined that the appellants could not recover damages for
<br />inverse condemnation even if the zoning ordinances constituted a taking. The court stated that
<br />only mandamus and declaratory judgment are remedies available to such a landowner.
<br />Because no taking has occurred, we need not consider whether a State may limit the remedies
<br />available to a person whose land has been taken without just compensation.
<br />The judgment of the Supreme Court of California is
<br />Affirmed.
<br />U.S.Cal.,1980.
<br />Agins v. City of Tiburon
<br />447 U.S. 255,100 S.Ct. 2138, 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 14 ERC 1555,10 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,361
<br />
<br />Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)
<br />
<br />· 1980 WL 339997 (Appellate Brief) Appellants' Reply Brief (Apr. 10, 1980)
<br />· 1980 WL 340017 (Appellate Brief) Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Out-of-Time
<br />and Amicus Curiae Brief ofthe State of New Jersey (Apr. 09, 1980)
<br />· 1980 WL 339998 (Appellate Brief) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae (Apr. 03,
<br />1980 )
<br />· 1980 WL 340016 (Appellate Brief) Brief of the Conservation Foundation, Environmental
<br />Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, National Center for Preservation Law, National
<br />Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, National Parks and Conservation
<br />Association, National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Wildlife Federation, Preservation
<br />Action, and Sierra Club as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellee (Mar. 25, 1980)
<br />· 1980 WL 339996 (Appellate Brief) Appellee's Brief (Mar. 24, 1980)
<br />
<br />9/26/2005
<br />
|