Here's the latest takings cert petition, in a case involving a California county's refusal to rezone property back to its former zoning to allow residential development. The only uses permitted on the property presently are "scientific research facilities uses" and hiking trails. Or, at the petition puts it, "only public, park-like uses." Pet. at 5.
The District Court and the Ninth Circuit both held no taking.
Here are the Questions Presented:
Does a taking analyzed under Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council require that the affected property be left with no value even if the regulation in question deprives the property of all economically beneficial uses?Does Palazzolo v. Rhode Island leave any room for consideration of the landowners’ expectations in a Penn Central takings analysis?Do the decisions in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, Sheetz v. Cnty. of El Dorado and Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc., change the way courts should evaluate the “character of governmental action” factor in a Penn Central analysis?
Follow along here, or on the Court's docket.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Collins v. Monterey County, No. 24-487 (U.S. Oct. 31, 2024)
