Citation network
Yee Vs. Escondido
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 01, 1992
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 519 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Yee Et Al. V. CitySearch
-
regulatory taking, but have nothing to do with whether it causes a physical taking. Moreover, the footnote in Loretto v. TeleprompterSearch
-
of property (or actually takes title), the Takings Clause generally requires compensation. See, e. g., Loretto v. TeleprompterSearch
-
to bear a burden that should be borne by the public as a whole. See, e. g., Penn Central Transportation Co. v. NewSearch
-
Id., at 5-6. In their opposition to the city's demurrer, the Yees relied almost entirely on Hall v. SantaSearch
-
which had held that a similar mobile home rent control ordinance effected a physical taking under Loretto v. TeleprompterSearch
-
below and those of two of the Federal Courts of Appeals, in Hall, supra, and Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. BarnegatSearch
-
regulating housing throughout the country violate the Takings Clause. Brief for Petitioners 7, 10. Cf. Pennell v. SanSearch
-
FCC v. FloridaSearch
-
Power Corp., 480 U. S. 245 , 252 (1987). Thus whether the government floods a landowner's property, Pumpelly v. GreenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Kaiser Aetna v. UnitedSearch
-
property, and we accordingly confine ourselves to the face of the statute. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSearch
-
see also Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
at 12, n. 6, or require the landowner to accept tenants he does not like, see, e. g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 241 , 261 (1964), without automatically having to pay compensation. See also PruneYard Shopping Center v. RobinsSearch
-
is a sufficient nexus between the effect of the ordinance and the objectives it is supposed to advance. See Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. NewSearch
-
right to compensation based on their inability to exclude particular individuals. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
PruneYard Shopping Center v. RobinsSearch
-
lack the power to condition petitioners' ability to run mobile home parks on their waiver of this right. Cf. Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
does not help petitioners. With respect to physical takings, then, this case is not far removed from FCC v. FloridaSearch
-
Court denied discretionary review. Such a denial, as in this Court, expresses no view as to the merits. See People v. TriggsSearch
-
with very rare exceptions, refused to consider petitioners' claims that were not raised or addressed below. Illinois v. GatesSearch
-
not resolve the question here. (In cases arising from federal courts, the rule is prudential only. See, e. g., Carlson v. GreenSearch
-
as applied to petitioners' property would be unripe for this reason, see Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. HamiltonSearch
-
no matter how it is applied. See Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Agins v. TiburonSearch
-
particular petitioners are compensated, petitioners' facial challenge is ripe. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSearch
-
parties are not limited to the precise arguments they made below. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. CrenshawSearch
-
Dewey v. DesSearch
-
below. While we have on occasion rephrased the question presented by a petitioner, see, e. g., Ankenbrandt v. RichardsSearch
-
the parties to address an important question of law not raised in the petition for certiorari, see, e. g., Payne v. TennesseeSearch
-
we ordinarily do not consider questions outside those presented in the petition for certiorari. See, e. g., Berkemer v. McCartySearch
-
with the holdings of the Courts of Appeals for the Third and Ninth Circuits in Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. BarnegatSearch
-
Township Leveling Board, 898 F. 2d 347 (CA3 1990), and Hall v. SantaSearch
-
but they exist side by side, neither encompassing the other. Cf. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. HarocoSearch
-
high percentage of the Nation's mobile homes. Forum shopping is thus of particular concern. See Azul Pacifico, Inc. v. LosSearch
-
the benefit of developed arguments on both sides and lower court opinions squarely addressing the question. See Lytle v. HouseholdSearch
-
I agree with the Court that the Escondido ordinance is not a taking under this Court's analysis in Loretto v. TeleprompterSearch
-
Syllabus Yee Et Al. V. CitySearch
-
Loretto v. TeleprompterSearch
-
Hall v. SantaSearch
-
and Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. BarnegatSearch
-
Cf. Pennell v. SanSearch
-
Pumpelly v. GreenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial