First English Evangelical Lutheran Church. v. County of Los Angeles case brief summary
482 U.S. 304
CASE SYNOPSIS:
Appellant property owner challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, affirming a trial court's decision that appellant could not recover damages for the time before it was finally determined that appellee county's regulation constituted a taking of appellant's property.
OVERVIEW: Appellant property owner filed a complaint after appellee county had adopted an ordinance in response to a flood that destroyed a portion of appellant's property. The complaint sought to recover in inverse condemnation and sought damages for the loss of use of a portion of the property. The trial court found in favor of appellee county and the appellate court affirmed, holding that appellant could not recover for damages for the time before it was finally determined that the regulation constituted a taking of appellant's property.
HOLDING:
The Supreme Court found probable jurisdiction and reversed the appellate court's decision. The Court found that U.S. Const. amends. V and XIV required that appellee compensate appellant for that period of time.
ANALYSIS:
The Court concluded that appellee's actions already constituted a taking and, therefore, no subsequent action by appellee could relieve it of the duty to compensate appellant for the period during which the taking was effective.
OUTCOME: The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
482 U.S. 304
CASE SYNOPSIS:
Appellant property owner challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, affirming a trial court's decision that appellant could not recover damages for the time before it was finally determined that appellee county's regulation constituted a taking of appellant's property.
OVERVIEW: Appellant property owner filed a complaint after appellee county had adopted an ordinance in response to a flood that destroyed a portion of appellant's property. The complaint sought to recover in inverse condemnation and sought damages for the loss of use of a portion of the property. The trial court found in favor of appellee county and the appellate court affirmed, holding that appellant could not recover for damages for the time before it was finally determined that the regulation constituted a taking of appellant's property.
HOLDING:
The Supreme Court found probable jurisdiction and reversed the appellate court's decision. The Court found that U.S. Const. amends. V and XIV required that appellee compensate appellant for that period of time.
ANALYSIS:
The Court concluded that appellee's actions already constituted a taking and, therefore, no subsequent action by appellee could relieve it of the duty to compensate appellant for the period during which the taking was effective.
OUTCOME: The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment