Court Opinion

ID: 9430613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:30:12.189058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:25.199787
License: Public Domain

Justice Rehnquist,
with whom Justice Powell joins, dissenting.
I agree with Justice White that the Court of Appeal’s opinion is best read as rejecting appellant’s allegations as a matter of substantive takings law; that appellant sufficiently alleged a final decision denying it all beneficial use of its property; that a land use regulation restricting the use of property may amount to a taking; and that the allegations here are sufficient to state a takings claim. Accordingly, I join Parts I, II, and III of his dissenting opinion. As Justice White recognizes in Part IV of his opinion, the questions surrounding what compensation, if any, is due a property owner in the context of “interim” takings are multifaceted and difficult. I would not reach these questions without first permitting the courts below to address them in light of the fact that appellant has sufficiently alleged a taking.