| 24-486 |
William B. Walton, et al. v. Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority |
Oregon |
2024-10-30 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
fifth-amendment just-compensation physical-occupation property-rights statute-of-limitations takings-clause |
Whether a Constitutional Fifth Amendment Takings Claim, based on a physical occupation, fully accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run bef… |
| 24A58 |
William B. Walton, et al. v. Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority |
Oregon |
2024-07-17 |
Presumed Complete |
|
fifth-amendment just-compensation physical-occupation property-rights statute-of-limitations takings-clause |
Question not identified. |
| 22-739 |
David Kagan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, California, et al. |
Ninth Circuit |
2023-02-07 |
Denied |
Amici (3)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (3) |
constitutional-law due-process eminent-domain eviction physical-occupation physical-taking property-rights rent-control rent-stabilization takings tenant-protection |
Whether a law that bars termination of a tenancy, and compels the occupation of property by an unwanted tenant, amounts to a per se, physical taking, … |
| 21-66 |
PBS Coals, Inc., et al. v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation |
Pennsylvania |
2021-07-19 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
14th-amendment 5th-amendment coal constitutional-law equal-protection physical-occupation property-rights real-estate subsurface-estate takings takings-clause |
Issue 1: When a State Agency permanently physically occupies a right-of-way and thereby completely blocks physical access to a subsurface owner's reco… |
| 19-150 |
Lynn Lumbard, et al. v. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan |
Sixth Circuit |
2019-08-01 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
42-usc-1983 5th-amendment federal-court-review fifth-amendment just-compensation loretto-v-teleprompter permanent-physical-occupation physical-occupation san-remo-hotel state-court-exhaustion takings takings-claim takings-clause |
In Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 4197 (U.S., J une 2 1, 2 019), this Court expressly overruled the state c… |