
Loading…

Loading…
Opinion
638 F.3d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 12, 2010
Ninth Circuit · Dec 30, 2024
N.D. California · Dec 6, 2024
Ninth Circuit · Nov 27, 2024
Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 2024
E.D. California · Aug 22, 2024
N.D. California · Jun 4, 2024
Ninth Circuit · Apr 20, 2023
E.D. California · Apr 13, 2023
Ninth Circuit · Feb 10, 2023
C.D. California · Nov 17, 2022
E.D. California · Nov 7, 2022
Parentheticals
holding that the first two factors are the “primary” factors to consider; the character of the governmental action is not on equal footing
noting that this court is “bound by precedent establishing that such laws do have a rational basis”
stating that Penn Central’s reference to “distinct” means “capable of being easily perceived, or characterized by individualizing qualities” and “‘[d]istinct investment-backed expectations’ implies reasonable probability” of recovery on the investments
indicating that investment-backed expectations are 4 informed by “the burden of rent control”
assuming without deciding that claim was ripe because ripeness considerations were prudential
Paramount Contractors & Developers, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
“The Guggenheims challenge only the 2002 City of Goleta ordinance, not the 1979 or 1987 County of Santa Barbara ordinances.”