Real Estate & Property Law

Cert Denied In Ripeness And Penn Central Case

By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)

It's easy to blog a case when you or your colleagues win it, and we've had plenty to talk about lately in that department in eminent domain and zoning law.

On the other hand, it's not so easy to write about a case when you don't prevail. Today is one of those days. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the California Court of Appeal's decision in Charles A. Pratt Const. Co. v. California Coastal Comm'n, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (the California court's slip opinion available here). The Supreme Court's Order List denying review is posted here.

We blogged about the lower court decision here, the rehearing petition here, and the cert petition here. We (and others) filed amicus briefs, urging the Court to review the case. Our brief is posted here. The two Questions Presented by the cert petition involved whether the ad hoc Penn Central test for whether government action effects a regulatory taking of property can be reduced to bright-line rules, and whether, under the Williamson County ripeness rules, a property owner must continue to pursue a development application when the reviewing agency makes it clear that denial of the application is the "only appropriate course."

A denial of a petition for writ of certiorari does not mean that the Supreme Court approves of the lower court decision or that the issues are not worthy, merely that the case (for whatever reason) is not appropriate for the Court's review. The Penn Central and Williamson County issues remain ripe for review in some case, just not this one.

To paraphrase the good governor of California: "We'll be back."

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on February 23, 2009 (boomark / email).