Williamson County

Two or three steps? You decide. A takings case arising from the same locality in Rhode Island that gave us Palazzolo (Westerly, R.I.). In DiBiccari v. Rhode Island, No. 2023-353 (Mar. 10, 2026), the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the owner’s federal takings claim was not ripe because even though the State agency had denied a variance to allow installation of a wastewater system, the owner had not pursued the agency’s administrative appeals process. …
Continue Reading RI: Federal Takings Claim Must Be Ripened By Exhausting State Admin Remedies By Appealing Variance Denial

Although Knick knocked out the Supreme Court-created requirement that before an owner may assert a takings claim, he must first effectively exhaust available state procedures for obtaining compensation, it left the other ripeness requirement — that the government has made a “final decision” applying the challenged law to the owner — in place. Despite the Supreme Court in Pakdel noting that the final decision rule is a “relatively modest” requirement and does not require exhaustion of remedies (administrative or otherwise), some lower courts refuse to accept the message. Well here’s one that not only gets its wrong, it gets it seriously wrong.
Continue Reading Say What? CA4: Takings Claim Not Ripe Because Owner Could Always Change The Law

An interesting decision from the Kansas federal district court, Mount St. Scholastica, Inc. v. City of Atchison, No. 06-2208-CM (Mar. 12, 2007), contains a land use trifecta: historic preservation, religious objections to a denial of a permit, and regulatory takings.  (No link yet to opinion, which currently is only available via Westlaw; email me…