A cert petition has been filed by the property owners in a case we've been following about what the takings ripeness doctrine of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) requires.
In Downing/Salt Pond Partners v. Rhode Island, 643 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that because Rhode Island state law might allow an inverse condemnation remedy andthe burden is on the property owner to show that the remedy is unavailable, and thus the case was not ripe for review in federal court.
The petition poses these Questions Presented:
Does the ripeness doctrine of Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 194 (1985), require a property owner to litigate in state court to show a taking of property is "without just compensation," and thus, ripe for federal review, if it is already clear that the agency causing the taking has no plan or intent to compensate, and where requiring an additional step of state court litigation:(1) divests federal courts of all jurisdiction over ripe federal takings claims,(2) bars federal jurisdiction over traditional federal due process and equal protection property rights violations,(3) often forecloses all judicial review (state and federal) of takings claims because defendants can remove state-court takings claims to a federal forum that cannot hear them, and(4) is unnecessary for ripeness in this situation, and was criticized by four Justices in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 350-52 (2005)?
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Downing/Salt Pond Partners, LP v. State of Rhode Island
