Margaret Kinzli Evelyn Goossen Philip Kinzli Ernest Kinzli, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa Cruz

Ninth Circuit

Margaret Kinzli Evelyn Goossen Philip Kinzli Ernest Kinzli, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa Cruz

830 F.2d 968

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 7, 1987

Docket86-1504, 86-1624

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 830 F.2d 968 (Margaret Kinzli Evelyn Goossen Philip Kinzli Ernest Kinzli, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa Cruz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Margaret Kinzli Evelyn Goossen Philip Kinzli Ernest Kinzli, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa Cruz, 830 F.2d 968 (9th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

The opinion filed June 4, 1987, 818 F.2d 1449, is amended at the slip op. page 13, second paragraph, after the sentence ending “denying them a variance.” [page 1455, 2d col. line 9] by inserting the following footnote;

*In their petition for rehearing, the Kinzlis erroneously argue that their takings claim is ripe under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, —U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2378, 96 L.Ed.2d 250 (1987). In First English Evangelical, the Supreme Court held that the question of whether the fifth amendment requires compensation for regulatory takings which are ultimately invalidated by the courts was ripe for consideration. The Court based its decision on the fact that the state court below had assumed that a taking had occurred, denying compensation on the ground that the only remedy for a regulatory taking is nonmonetary relief. —U.S. at---, 107 S.Ct. at 2383. The Court explicitly distinguished cases such as this one in which "the factual disputes yet to be resolved by state authorities might still lead to the conclusion that no taking had occurred,” or to the conclusion that "just compensation” had been paid. —U.S. at---& n. 6, 107 S.Ct. at 2383-84 & n. 6 (distinguishing the MacDonald, Sommer & Frates line of cases).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

The opinion filed June 4, 1987, 818 F.2d 1449, is amended at the slip op. page 13, second paragraph, after the sentence ending “denying them a variance.” [page 1455, 2d col. line 9] by inserting the following footnote;

*In their petition for rehearing, the Kinzlis erroneously argue that their takings claim is ripe under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, —U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2378, 96 L.Ed.2d 250 (1987). In First English Evangelical, the Supreme Court held that the question of whether the fifth amendment requires compensation for regulatory takings which are ultimately invalidated by the courts was ripe for consideration. The Court based its decision on the fact that the state court below had assumed that a taking had occurred, denying compensation on the ground that the only remedy for a regulatory taking is nonmonetary relief. —U.S. at---, 107 S.Ct. at 2383. The Court explicitly distinguished cases such as this one in which "the factual disputes yet to be resolved by state authorities might still lead to the conclusion that no taking had occurred,” or to the conclusion that "just compensation” had been paid. —U.S. at---& n. 6, 107 S.Ct. at 2383-84 & n. 6 (distinguishing the MacDonald, Sommer & Frates line of cases).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

830 F.2d 968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margaret-kinzli-evelyn-goossen-philip-kinzli-ernest-kinzli-plaintiffs-v-ca9-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack