G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2021–2022 · 2 courts ·
…implies reasonable probability.
at p. 1120
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…so it would be a waste of the parties' and the courts' resources to bounce the case through more rounds of litigation.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 44 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Stolfi
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Facial challenges are exempt from [prudential finality requirements] because a facial challenge by its nature does not involve a decision applying the statute or regulation.”); see also Suitum, 520 U.S. at 736 n.10 (“[F]acial challenges to regulation are generally ripe the moment the challenged regulation or ordinance is passed, but face an uphill battle since it is difficult to demonstrate that mere enactment of a piece of legislation deprived the owner of economically viable use of his property.” (cleaned u…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Corrine Thomas v. County of Humboldt
There, we recognized that Action Apartment Ass’n, Inc. applied only in the context of injury to property where “the very enactment of the statute [at issue] has reduced the value of the property or has effected a transfer of a property interest.” Id. (quoting Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1119 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nicholas Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus
However, Penn Central sets forth no “set 4 formula” to determine whether a regulatory action is “‘functionally equivalent to the classic 5 taking.’” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Little Woods Mobile Villa LLC v. City of Petaluma
Ass’n of Los Angeles Cnty., Inc. v. City of 19 Los Angeles, 10 F.4th 905 , 913 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Energy Reserves Group, 459 U.S. 20 at 413). 21 Plaintiffs’ Contracts Clause claim concerns the PZL’s “in-place value condition.” 22 After the enactment of AB 2782, if residents displaced by a mobile home park closure 23 “cannot obtain adequate housing in another mobilehome park,” then the park owner “shall 24 pay to the displaced resident the in-place market value of the displaced resident’s 25 4 In the takings context, ripeness is “prudential rather than jurisdictional.�…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Craneveyor Corp. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga
We “assume, without deciding, that a facial challenge can be made under Penn Central.” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nicholas Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus
Penn Central, however, sets forth no 11 “set formula” to determine whether a regulatory action is “‘functionally equivalent to the classic 12 taking.’” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GHP Management Corporation v. City of Los Angeles
(2×)
“To ‘expect’ can 5 mean to anticipate or look forward to, but it can also mean ‘to 6 consider probable or certain,’ and ‘distinct’ means capable of 7 being easily perceived, or characterized by individualizing 8 qualities.” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th 9 Cir. 2010) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nicholas Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus
However, Penn Central sets forth no “set 18 formula” to determine whether a regulatory action is “‘functionally equivalent to the classic 19 taking.’” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Windeler v. Cambria Community Services District
See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1005 (1984); Colony Cove Props., 888 F.3d at 452 ; Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010). 25.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gennadiy Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City
See, e.g., Palazzolo, 533 U.S. at 634–35 (O’Connor, J., con- curring) (chiding lower court for giving “investment-backed expectations … exclusive significance”); Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1123 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (Bea, J., dissenting) (objecting that the majority “converts a three- factor balancing test into a ‘one-strike-you’re-out’ checklist”); Adam R.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
2095 Stonington, LLC v. Village of Hoffman Estates
Such an expectation “implies reasonable probability.” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kalthoff v. Douglas County
Courts apply these factors “to determine whether a regulatory action is functionally equivalent 8 to the classic taking.” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010) (en 9 banc).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lyndsey Ballinger v. City of Oakland
LP v. City of San Rafael, 714 F.3d 1118 , 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2013); Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lyndsey Ballinger v. City of Oakland
LP v. City of San Rafael, 714 F.3d 1118 , 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2013); Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bennett v. Kingman, City of
The “consideration of these factors aims ‘to 20 determine whether a regulatory action is functionally equivalent to the classic taking.’” Id. 21 (quoting Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) 22 (internal quotations omitted)). 23 Under the first Penn Central factor, courts “compare the value that has been taken 24 from the property with the value that remains in the property.” Colony Cove Props., LLC 25 v. City of Carson, 888 F.3d 445, 450 (9th Cir. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Flint v. County of Kauai
In considering these factors, the court’s aim is “to determine whether a regulatory action is functionally equivalent to the classic [physical] taking.” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lemon Bay Cove, LLC v. United States
Cir. 2003); Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that Penn Central’s reference to “distinct” means “capable of being easily perceived, or characterized by individualizing qualities” and “‘[d]istinct investment-backed expectations’ implies reasonable probability” of recovery on the investments).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm.
Our consideration of these factors aims “to determine whether a regulatory action is functionally equivalent to the classic taking.” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Road Space Media, LLC v. Miami-Dade County
The Court reasoned that “the property would have decreased in value at that time because any current or future development plans would have been subject to the Ordinance’s requirement[.]” Any future owners would not arguably suffer an injury “because the price they paid for the property [would] reflect[] the burden of [the ordinance].” Id. (quoting Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marilyn Scheer v. Patrick Kelly
This is a single harm, measurable and compensable when the statute is passed.” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1119 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (quoting Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 688 (9th Cir.1993)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rancho De Calistoga v. City of Calistoga
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See Ordinance 644 § 2.22.010.B; Guggenheim, 638 F.3d at 1123 (noting that this court is “bound by precedent establishing that such laws do have a rational basis”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Friends Of San Juans v. San Juan County
App. 649, 656 , 187 P.3d 786 (2008). review denied. 165Wn.2d 1030 (2009); Guggenheim v. City of Goleta. 638 F.3d 1111, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2010), cert denied, 131 S. Ct. 2455 (2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
A Forever Recovery, Inc. v. Township of Pennfield
The Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dibbs v. Hillsborough County
Id. at 1283 (quoting Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir.2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hillcrest Property, LLC v. Pasco County
Any future owners could not arguably have suffered an injury because the “price they paid for the [property] doubtless reflected the burden of rent control they would have to suffer.” Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MHC Financing Ltd. Partnership v. City of San Rafael
The district court held that the Ordinance was permissible under the Due Process Clause because “a rational legislator could have.believed that the rent control ordinance would further the stated goals, at least insofar as the purpose is to protect existing tenants.” As discussed above, the threshold for a rationality review challenge asks only “whether the enacting body could have *1131 rationally believed at the time of enactment that the law would promote its objective.” Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Cnty. of San Luis Obispo, 548 F.3d 1184, 1194 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting Carson Har…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Asociacion De Suscripcion Conj v. Juarbe-Jimenez
This is a single harm, measurable and compensable when the statute is passed." (quoting Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1119 (9th Cir. 2010))); New Pulaski Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., Nos. 97-2118, 97-2204, 2000 WL 1005207 , at *6 (4th Cir. July 20, 2000) (rejecting continuing violation theory in the context of a facial challenge to an ordinance, holding that "any taking occurred at the time of the Moratorium's enactment"); Kuhnle Bros., Inc. v. Cnty. of Geauga, 103 F.3d 516, 521 (6th Cir. 1997) ("Any deprivation of property that [plaintiff] suffered was fully effectuate…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paramount Contractors & Developers, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc), cert. denied _ U.S. _, 131 S.Ct. 2455 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1210 (2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson
Guggenheim, 638 F.3d at 1123 (footnotes omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
GVC ST. GEORGE, LLC v. City of Santa Cruz
However, the Court agrees with Defendant that those expectations should have been 1 “given the historically regulated nature of the housing market and the City’s longstanding efforts 2 to address housing affordability and homelessness.” Opp. at 17; see Guggenheim v. City of 3 Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010) (indicating that investment-backed expectations are 4 informed by “the burden of rent control”).
discussed
Cited "see"
California Association for the Preservation of Gam v. Stanislaus County
See Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 956 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he statute of limitations for facial challenges to an ordinance runs from the time of adoption.” (citing Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1119 (9th Cir. 2010))).
discussed
Cited "see"
Donna Chessen v. City of San Rafael
See Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111 , 1120–21 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (reasoning that when a rent control ordinance is in place and a matter of public record before a property is purchased, the sale price incorporates the burden of the rent control); MHC Fin.
discussed
Cited "see"
State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz (Slip Opinion)
See Guggenheim v. Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111 , 1120 (9th Cir.2010) (according dispositive status to its conclusion on the inquiry into reasonable investment- backed expectations). {¶ 120} The majority declines to accord controlling significance to the investment-backed-expectations factor.
discussed
Cited "see"
State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz (Slip Opinion)
See Guggenheim v. Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111 , 1120 (9th Cir.2010) (according 45 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO dispositive status to its conclusion on the inquiry into reasonable investment- backed expectations). {¶ 120} The majority declines to accord controlling significance to the investment-backed-expectations factor.
cited
Cited "see"
Peyman Pakdel v. City and Cty. of S.F.
See Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
cited
Cited "see"
The Venice Grind, LLC v. City of Los Angeles
See Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Williamson Cty.
discussed
Cited "see"
State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Zehringer
See Guggenheim v. Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111 , 1120 (9th Cir.2010) (“Speculative possibilities of windfalls do not 18 amount to ‘distinct investment-backed expectations.’”); see also Rith Energy, Inc. v. United States, 247 F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Home Builders Ass'n of Greater Chicago v. City of Chicago
Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis, 736 F.3d 1060, 1074 (7th Cir. 2013); see Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, 800 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2015) (“This principle “implies reasonable probability, like expecting rent to be paid[.]” (quoting Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Levin v. City & County of San Francisco
(2×)
See Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1117-18 (9th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peace Ranch LLC v. Bonta
See e.g., Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 13 638 F.3d 1111, 1123 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Whether the City of 14 Goleta’s economic theory for rent control is sound or not, 15 and whether rent control will serve the purposes stated in 16 the ordinance of protecting tenants from housing shortages 17 and abusively high rents or will undermine those purposes, 18 is not for us to decide.”); Schnuck v. City of Santa Monica, 19 935 F.2d 171, 175 (9th Cir. 1991) (“That rent control may 20 unduly disadvantage others, or that it may exert adverse 21 long-term effects on the housing market, are matters fo…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Saddle Mountain Minerals, LLC v. City of Richland
Determining the reasonable investment-backed expectations requires an “objective analysis,” the focus of which is the “interference with reasonable expectations.” Bridge Aina Le‘a, 950 F.3d at 633 ; see also Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2010).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Commission
See Suitum v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725, 733 , 117 S.Ct. 1659 , 137 L.Ed.2d 980 (1997); see also Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111, 1117-18 (9th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Laurel Park Community, LLC v. City of Tumwater
See also Guggenheim, 638 F.3d at 1120 (holding that the first two factors are the “primary” factors to consider; the character of the governmental action is not on equal footing).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Laurel Park Community, LLC v. City of Tumwater
Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir.1998); see also Guggenheim, 638 F.3d at 1118-19 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel GUGGENHEIM; Susan Guggenheim; Maureen H. Pierce, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF GOLETA, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
v.
CITY OF GOLETA, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Mark D. Alpert, Esquire, Robert S. Coldren, Esquire, Hart King & Coldren, PC, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Bruce C. Gridley, Esquire, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, Los Angeles, CA, Amy Eileen Hoyt, Esquire, Burke Williams & Sorerensen, LLP, Riverside, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.