Sierra Lake Reserve v. The City of Rocklin the Rocklin Mobile Home Rent Review Commission Carlos Urrutia Rusty Selix Rudolf Michaels George Paras

Ninth Circuit

Sierra Lake Reserve v. The City of Rocklin the Rocklin Mobile Home Rent Review Commission Carlos Urrutia Rusty Selix Rudolf Michaels George Paras

987 F.2d 662, 93 Daily Journal DAR 3381, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1885, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4683, 1993 WL 69542

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 1993

Docket89-15371

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 987 F.2d 662 (Sierra Lake Reserve v. The City of Rocklin the Rocklin Mobile Home Rent Review Commission Carlos Urrutia Rusty Selix Rudolf Michaels George Paras) 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

Sierra Lake Reserve v. The City of Rocklin the Rocklin Mobile Home Rent Review Commission Carlos Urrutia Rusty Selix Rudolf Michaels George Paras, 987 F.2d 662, 93 Daily Journal DAR 3381, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1885, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4683, 1993 WL 69542 (9th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The “[t]wo recent state court opinions [that] refused to follow our decision in Hall [v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1270 (9th Cir.1986)],” Sierra Lake Reserve v. City of Rocklin, 938 F.2d 951, 955 (9th Cir.1991), have proven prescient. See Yee v. City of Escondido, — U.S.-,-, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 1527, 1531, 118 L.Ed.2d 153 (1992). We therefore vacate Part I of the Sierra Lake Reserve opinion, which dealt with the physical taking claim. We retain Part II because the due process and equal protection claims it considered are unaffected by Yee. See — U.S. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 1531. We express no opinion on whether the city ordinance could constitute a regulatory taking — a question Yee leaves open, see id. — because no regulatory taking argument was made to us or the court below.

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

ORDER

The “[t]wo recent state court opinions [that] refused to follow our decision in Hall [v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1270 (9th Cir.1986)],” Sierra Lake Reserve v. City of Rocklin, 938 F.2d 951, 955 (9th Cir.1991), have proven prescient. See Yee v. City of Escondido, — U.S.-,-, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 1527, 1531, 118 L.Ed.2d 153 (1992). We therefore vacate Part I of the Sierra Lake Reserve opinion, which dealt with the physical taking claim. We retain Part II because the due process and equal protection claims it considered are unaffected by Yee. See — U.S. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 1531. We express no opinion on whether the city ordinance could constitute a regulatory taking — a question Yee leaves open, see id. — because no regulatory taking argument was made to us or the court below.

Tomas Armendariz Rosa Armendariz Harry Julian Brown, Jr. Lance A. Bukouskis v. James F. Penman W.R. Holcomb David M. Stachowski Cecil Dillard Kenneth J. Henderson, Tomas Armendariz Rosa C. Armendariz Harry Julian Brown, Jr. Lance A. Bukouskis v. James F. Penman W.R. Holcomb David M. Stachowski Cecil Dillard Kenneth J. Henderson, and Al Boughey Larry Reed, Tomas Armendariz Rosa C. Armendariz v. James F. Penman

31 F.3d 860 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Armendariz v. Penman

31 F.3d 860 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Adamson Companies v. City of Malibu

854 F. Supp. 1476 (C.D. California, 1994)

Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande

17 F.3d 1227 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert

998 F.2d 680 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

987 F.2d 662, 93 Daily Journal DAR 3381, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1885, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4683, 1993 WL 69542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sierra-lake-reserve-v-the-city-of-rocklin-the-rocklin-mobile-home-rent-ca9-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack