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

Browse Search

e 85-1199-0PINION e 4 FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY On appeal, the California Court of Appeal read the com- plaint as one seeking "damages for the uncompensated taking of all use of Lutherglen by County Ordinance No. 11,855 . . .." App. to Juris. Statement AI3-AI4. It too relied on the California Supreme Court's decision in Agins in rejecting the cause of action, declining appellant's invitation to reevalu- ate Agins in light of this Court's opinions in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621 (1981). The court found itself obligated to follow Agins "because the United States Supreme Court has not yet roled on the question of whether a state may constitutionally limit the remedy for a taking to nonmonetary relief . . . ." App. to Juris. State- ment A16. It accordingly affirmed the trial court's decision to strike the allegations. concerning appellee's ordinance. 3 The Supreme Court of California denied review. a'The California Court of Appeal also affinned the lower court's orders limiting the issues for trial on the first cause of action, granting a nonsuit on the issues that proceeded to trial, and dismissing the second cause of action-based on cloud seeding-to the extent it was founded on a theory of strict liability in tort. The court reversed the trial court's ruling that the second cause of action could not be maintained against the Flood Con- trol District under the theory of inverse condemnation. The case was re. manded for further proceedings on this claim. These circumstances alone, apart from the more particular issues pre. sented in takings cases and discussed in the text, require us to consider whether the pending resolution of further liability questions deprives us of jurisdiction because we are not presented with a "final judgmen[t] or de- cre[e]" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. t 1257. We think that this case is fairly characterized as one "in which the federal issue, finally decided bY the highest court in the State [in which a decision could be had], will sur- vive regardless of the outcome of future state-court proceedings." C oz Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 480 (1~75). As we explain infra, at ---, the California Court of Appeal rejected appellant's federal claim that it was entitled to just compensation from the county for the taking of its property; this distinct issue of federal law will survive and require decision no matter how further proceedings resolve the issues con- cerning the liability of the flood control district for its cloud seeding operation.