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

Browse Search

e 85-ll99-0PINION e FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 5 This appeal followed, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 478 U. S. -. Appellant asks us to hold that the Supreme Court of California erred in Agins v. Tiburon in detennining that the Fifth Amendment, as made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, does not require com- pensation as a remedy for "temporary" regulatory takings- those regulatory takings which are ultimately invalidated by the courts..a Four times this decade, we have considered similar claims and have found ourselves for one reason or an- other unable to consider the merits of the Agins rule. See MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U. S. - (l98~); Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S. 172 (1985); San Diego Gas & Electric Co., supra; Agins v. Tiburon, supra. For the rea- sons explained below, however, we find the constitutional claim properly presented in this case, and hold that on these facts the California courts lic:.,e decided the compensation question inconsistently with the requirements of the Fifth Amendment. I Concerns with finality left us unable to reach the remedial question in the earlier cases where we have been asked to consider the rule of Agins. See MacDonald, Sommer & Frates, supra, at - (summarizing cases). In each of these cases, we concluded either that regulations considered to be in issue by the state court did not effect a taking, Agins v. Tiburon, supra, at 263, or that the factual disputes yet to be resolved by state authorities might still lead to the conclusion that no taking had occurred. MacDonald, Sommer & Frates, supra, at -; Williamson County, supra, at-; San Diego Gas & Electric Co., supra, at 631-623. Consider- 4 The Fifth Amendment provides "nor shall private property be taken Cor public use, without just compensation," and applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 (1897).