Here's the first post-Knick property owner victory. That was quick!
Now before you get too excited, this is a GVR ("grant, vacate, remand") in which the Court, having decided Knick, granted the pending petition, vacated the judgment by the Ninth Circuit, and "REMANDED for further consideration in light of Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U. S. ___ (2019)."
In Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (oral argument video above), the Ninth Circuit concluded that California law provided the property owner an adequate opportunity to raise takings and due process claims in a California court, and therefore his federal takings claim in federal court wasn't ripe under Williamson County. Honchariw disagreed, and argued that California had not provided an adequate opportunity, that "[t]he deicison below was stone-cold wrong under Williamson," and that this case "may be a useful sister to the Court's grant of certiorari in [Knick]."
Here are the two Questions Presented by the cert petition:
Whether taking and due process claims arising from a subdivision disapproval ripen under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission et al. v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) upon disapproval of an initial application or only upon a final, definitive determination of permitted use of property.Whether the procedure set up by the California Supreme Court requiring that all challenges to a subdivision decision be filed within 90 days - and barring later claims - provides an available and adequate state remedy under Williamson for taking claims which do not ripen until later.
Read the cert briefing on the Supreme Court's e-docket here.
Now let's see what the Ninth Circuit does on remand.
