U.S. Supreme Court,
Civil Litigation,
Judges and Judiciary,
Government,
Constitutional Law
Dec. 19, 2019
Plaintiff appeals district judge’s defiant takings ruling to keep Knick alive
In what both sides believe to be the first federal takings claim to test these post-Knick waters, a Riverside federal judge granted defense counsel’s motion to abstain the case, sent it back to state court and essentially nullified the effect plaintiffs’ attorneys had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court ruling would have.
Despite a federal judge's ruling that an inverse condemnation case must go back to state court -- seemingly defying the new U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott -- the plaintiffs-desired effect of the high court decision might not be dead.
K. Erik Friess of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP has ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
Civil Litigation
Inverse liability wildfire claims threaten Edison’s financial base
By Gina Kim
U.S. Supreme Court, Civil Litigation, Constitutional Law, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Knick interruptus?
By Michael M. Berger
Civil Litigation, Government, Constitutional Law
Riverside federal judge's ruling may have undercut Knick v Township of Scott
By Blaise Scemama
Constitutional Law
Knick v. Township of Scott
State-litigation requirement under 'Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City' imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the ...
