Knick then filed an action in Federal District Court underĤ2 U. S. C. Harm necessary for equitable relief, so it declined to rule on her Without an ongoing enforcementĪction, the court held, Knick could not demonstrate the irreparable Township responded by withdrawing the violation notice and stayingĮnforcement of the ordinance. Taking of her property, but she did not bring an inverseĬondemnation action under state law seeking compensation. Relief in state court on the ground that the ordinance effected a Property has a small family graveyard, was notified that she was Hours.” Petitioner Rose Mary Knick, whose 90-acre rural Kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight The Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, passed an If post-taking compensation remedies are available, governments need not fear that federal courts will invalidate their regulations as unconstitutional. There are no reliance interests on the state-litigation requirement. The requirement was unworkable in practice because the “preclusion trap” prevented takings plaintiffs from ever bringing their claims in federal court. The Court expressly overruled the state-litigation requirement as "poor reasoning" resulting from the circumstances in which the issue reached the Court. A property owner acquires a right to compensation immediately upon an uncompensated taking because the taking itself violates the Fifth Amendment. The Court noted that two years after the Williamson County decision, it returned to its traditional understanding of the Fifth Amendment in deciding First English Evangelical Lutheran Church. A government violates the Takings Clause when it takes property without compensation a property owner may bring a Fifth Amendment claim under section 1983 at that time.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |