green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
3.1 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Elling O. Eide v. Sarasota County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida
Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Williamson County, 105 S.Ct. at 3117 and MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340 , 106 S.Ct. 2561 , 2568 n. 8, 91 L.Ed.2d 285 , reh’g denied, 478 U.S. 1035 , 107 S.Ct. 22 , 92 L.Ed.2d 773 (1986), the court held “at least one application must be submitted before the futility exception applies.” (emphasis in original)); see Austin v. City and County of Honolulu, 840 F.2d 678, 680 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Williamson County and Lake Nacimiento Ranch Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo, 830 F.2d 977 (9th Cir.1…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Offen v. County Council for Prince George's County
before a court can conclude that there has been an unconstitutional taking of property, the government regulation must deprive the landowner of all reasonable uses of his land.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Whether the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices Is Empowered to Challenge the Constitutionality of State Statutes
where state law supplies the rule of decision, it is the duty of federal courts to ascertain and apply that law.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz
See Martino v. Santa Clara Valley Water District, 703 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 847 , 104 S.Ct. 151 , 78 L.Ed.2d 141 (1983); Hamilton Bank v. Williamson City Regional Planning Comm., 729 F.2d 402, 407 (6th Cir.1984), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 80 , 83 L.Ed.2d 28 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kaiser Development Co. v. City & County of Honolulu
Bishop contends that it need show only that “a public entity acting in furtherance of a public project directly and substantially interfere[d] with property rights and thereby significantly impair[ed] the value of property.” Richmond Elks, 561 F.2d at 1330 ; see also Martino v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist., 703 F.2d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 847 , 104 S.Ct. 151 , 78 L.Ed.2d 141 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kaiser Development Company v. City And County Of Honolulu
Bishop contends that it need show only that "a public entity acting in furtherance of a public project directly and substantially interfere[d] with property rights and thereby significantly impair[ed] the value of property." Richmond Elks, 561 F.2d at 1330 ; see also Martino v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist., 703 F.2d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 847 , 104 S.Ct. 151 , 78 L.Ed.2d 141 (1983). 15 We disagree.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Moore v. City of Costa Mesa
See First Church, 107 S.Ct. at 2387-88; see also Martino v. Santa Clara Valley Water District, 703 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 847 , 104 S.Ct. 151 , 78 L.Ed.2d 141 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kaiser Development Co. v. City & County of Honolulu
(2×)
See, e.g., Martino v. Santa Clara Valley Water District, 703 F.2d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 847 , 104 S.Ct. 151 , 78 L.Ed.2d 141 (1983); Washington Water & bight Co. v. East Yolo Community Services District, 120 Cal.App.3d 389 , 174 Cal.Rptr. 612 , 616-17 (1981); Taper v. City of *931 Long Beach, 129 Cal.App.3d 590 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 169, 176-77 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vann
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 83-36.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1983.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.