Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco

Docket No.: 04-340
Certiorari Granted: 12/10/2004
Argued: March 28, 2005
Decided: June 20, 2005

Topics:

Federalism, Due Process, Federal Preemption of State Jurisdiction, Takings Clause, Article I, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Full Faith and Credit, Takings Clause, habeas, preliminary injunction, property rights, res judicata

PartyNames: San Remo Hotel, L.P., et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.
Petitioner: San Remo Hotel, L.P., et al.
Respondent: City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 364 F3d 1088
Supreme Court Docket

San Remo Hotel, L.P., et al.
v.
City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.
545 U.S. 323 (2005)
Background:

The City and County of San Francisco adopted an ordinance that prohibited hotels from continuing their historic, duly-licensed operation as hotels, but allowed hotel owners to avoid those restrictions by paying an exaction. Petitioners brought this action challenging the exaction based on the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially refused to reach the merits of the constitutional challenge, finding that petitioners were required to ripen their claim by seeking compensation in state court under Williamson County Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. Once the claim was ripe, the Ninth Circuit again refused to reach the merits of the constitutional challenge, finding that the claim was barred by issue preclusion. In reaching that conclusion, the Ninth Circuit held that the California Supreme Courts' refusal to apply heightened scrutiny to legislative exactions under state law is consistent with federal Takings law.

Consideration Limited:

LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.

Question Presented:

1. Is a Fifth Amendment Takings claim barred by issue preclusion based on a judgment denying compensation solely under state law, which was rendered in a state court proceeding that was required to ripen the federal Takings claim? 2. Is deferential scrutiny, akin to the rational basis test, appropriate for exactions imposed by legislation even though exactions imposed by administrative adjudications are subject to heightened scrutiny under Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard?

Question:

Should federal courts make an exception to the full faith and credit statute for Fifth Amendment takings clause claims?

San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco
ORAL ARGUMENT

March 28, 2005

Holding: affirmed
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)