1991-12-09 Public Hearing, Citizens Participation Meeting, and Regular Meeting

Browse Search

Mul'WcIPAUTIES 1I4f THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT " June 9, 1987 - Special issue containing entire text of the Court's landmark "takings. opinion. NOTE: Where it is (euible. I.yllabus (headnote) will be released. u it beinl done in coMection with thi. case. at the time tile opinion is issued. E. Ilabua constitutes no part o( the opinion o( the Court but has been J)re- by tile Re~rter o( Decisions (or tile convenience o( the reader. See Il'Wd StlJlu v. Detroit LumbtT Co.. 200 U. S. 321. 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT No. 85-1199. Argued January 14, 1987-Decided June 9. 1987 In 1957, appellant church purchased land on which it operated a camp- ground, known as "Lutherglen," as a retreat center and a recreational area for handicapped children. The land is located in a canyon along the banks of a creek that is the natural drainage channel for a watershed areL In 1978, a flood destroyed Lutherglen'. buildings. In response to the flood. appellee Los Angeles County, in 1979. adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the construction or reconstruction of any building or structure in an interim flood protection area that included the land on which Lutherglen had stood. Shortly after the ordinance was adopted. appellant filed suit in a California trial court. alleging, inter a.lia.. that the ordinance denied appellant all use of Lutherglen. and seeking to recover damages in inverse condemnation for such loss of use. The trial court granted a motion to strike the allegation. basing its niling on Agins v. Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d 266.598 P. 2d 25 (afr'd on other grounds. 447 U. S. 255). in which the California Supreme Court held that a landowner may not maintain an inverse condemnation suit based upon a "regulatory" taking, and that compensation is not required until the challenged regu- lation or ordinance has been held excessive in an action for declaratory relief or a writ of mandamus and the government has nevertheless de- cided to continue the regulation in effect. Because appellant alleged a regulatory taking and !'ought only damages, the trial court deemed the allegation that the ordinance denied all use of Lutherglen to be irrele- vant. The California Court of Appeal affinned. Held.: 1. The claim that the Agina case improperly held that the Just Com- pensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not require compensation (For an announcement concerning the dissent, refer to the last page of this issue.) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL LAW OFFICERS 1000 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. NoW. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 (202) 466.5424 Charles S. Rhyne, EdItor-in-Chief Jan MaJe~sld, EdItor Rachel Sobin Ullman, Assistant Editor