The court nonetheless addressed the merits of the case. First, the court held that Palazzolo had not suffered a per se taking. Second, the court held that Palazzolo had not been subjected to a regulatory taking. Accordingly, the court found that Palazzolo had no reasonable investment-backed expectations that were affected by the regulations. The petition asserts that the decision of the Rhode Island court is in tension with decisions of other state and federal courts.
Some courts apparently apply less stringent ripeness analyses to takings claims.
Other courts appear to have permitted takings challenges to the operation of regulations imposed before the current owners acquired the regulated property. Still other courts have acknowledged that a regulatory taking may require compensation even if it does not eliminate all beneficial use of the property. This case is of obvious interest to the real estate and development industries and to any other business that may have its expansion or development plans restricted by land-use regulations. The decision will determine not only whether landowners may obtain relief for a wide variety of stringent development regulations, but whether their access to the courts to press such claims will be significantly delayed by judicial notions of ripeness. Government Contracts Agency Withholding of Contract Funds Due Process.