Opinion ID: 200574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prerequisites to a Takings Claim

Text: 10 In Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, the Supreme Court outlined two prerequisites to a federal suit alleging a Fifth Amendment taking of a property interest. 473 U.S. 172, 186, 194-95, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). A federal suit is not timely until a plaintiff demonstrates that (a) the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue, (the final decision requirement) and (b) the plaintiff sought (and was denied) just compensation by means of an adequate state procedure (the state action requirement). 2 Id. at 186, 194-95, 105 S.Ct. 3108. Williamson County stands for the proposition that there is no uncompensated taking — that is, nothing to litigate under § 1983 — until the state has established (a) what it has taken, and (b) its refusal to pay `just compensation.' SGB Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Consol. City of Indianapolis-Marion County, Ind., 235 F.3d 1036, 1038 (7th Cir.2000). 11 Although Williamson County was a regulatory taking case, a modified verison of its timeliness analysis applies to physical taking cases. Daniel v. County of Santa Barbara, 288 F.3d 375, 382 (9th Cir.2002). The present case concerns a potential physical taking, based on the intrusion onto Pascoag's property or the acquisition of rights in that property. 3 In a physical taking case, the final decision requirement is relieved or assumed because [w]here there has been a physical invasion, the taking occurs at once, and nothing the [governmental actor] can do or say after that point will change that fact. Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1270, 1281 n. 28 (9th Cir.1987); cf. Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552, 563 (6th Cir.2002) (finding final decision requirement satisfied because decision maker arrived at a definitive position inflicting an actual, concrete injury when its agents removed and destroyed plaintiff's alleged property); Forseth v. Village of Sussex, 199 F.3d 363, 372 n. 12 (7th Cir.2000) (finding physical taking claim subject only to Williamson County's state action requirement). However, the state action requirement remains in physical taking cases: [C]ompensation must first be sought from the state if adequate procedures are available. Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley, 882 F.2d 1398, 1402 (9th Cir.1989), overruled on other grounds by Armendariz v. Penman, 75 F.3d 1311, 1326 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).