takings claim in Nevada

2015City of Lafayette, 867 P.2d 724, 756 (Cal. 1994) (holding that an inverse condemnation plaintiff who did not prevail on a takings claim was not entitled to be shielded by the law against awarding costs in eminent domain actions). 8 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. cAdati , C.J.

2015City of Lafayette, 867 P.2d 724, 756 (Cal. 1994) (holding that an inverse condemnation plaintiff who did not prevail on a takings claim was not entitled to be shielded by the law against awarding costs in eminent domain actions). 8 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. cAdati , C.J.

2015See Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc., 119 Nev. 1, 22 , 62 P.3d 720, 734 (2003) ("Leave to amend should be freely given when justice requires . . . .").

2015See Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc., 119 Nev. 1, 22 , 62 P.3d 720, 734 (2003) ("Leave to amend should be freely given when justice requires . . . .").

2015See Buzz Stew I, 124 Nev. at 230-31 , 181 P.3d at 674 .

2015See Buzz Stew I, 124 Nev. at 230-31 , 181 P.3d at 674 .

2024The takings claim "Whether the government has inversely condemned private property is a question of law that we review de novo." McCarran Int'l Airport v. Sisolak, 122 Nev. 645, 661 , 137 P.3c1 1110, 1121 (2006). 180 Land asserted four theories in support of its takings claim below: (1) a Penn Central9 taking alleging that the City's actions destroyed nearly all the economic value of the 35 acres; (2) a per se regulatory taking alleging that 8We further note that other documents, including governmental records, recognized the 35 acres as being residential.

2013One “must have a property interest ... to support a takings claim.” Sisolak, 122 Nev. at 658 , 137 P.3d at 1119 .

2015Plaza, LLC, 129 Nev. „ 293 P.3d 860, 866 (2013).

2015Cliff Shadows, 129 Nev. at , 293 P.3d at 866 .

2014Cliff Shadows, 129 Nev. at 866 , 293 P.3d at 866 ; see also McCarran Int'l Airport v. Sisolak, 122 Nev. 645, 658 , 137 P.3d 1110, 1119 (2006); United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 20 (1958).

2013See McCarran Int’l Airport v. Sisolak, 122 Nev. 645, 658 , 137 P.3d 1110, 1119 (2006) (“An individual must have a property interest in order to support a takings claim.”); United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 20 (1958) (“Accordingly, [the claimant] can prevail only if the ‘taking’ occurred while he was the owner.”); see also United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26, 33 (1994) (“Tax legislation is not a promise, and a taxpayer has no vested right in the Internal Revenue Code.”).

2024Cinnamon Hills Assocs., 110 Nev. 238, 245-46 , 871 P.2d 320, 324-25 (1994) (rejecting a takings claim where the government's use of its discretionary authority to reject "a perrnit to build living quarters for the elderly did not destroy all viable economic value of the prospective property").

2024Cinnamon Hills Assocs., 110 Nev. 238, 245-46 , 871 P.2d 320, 324-25 (1994) (rejecting a takings claim where the government's use of its discretionary authority to reject "a perrnit to build living quarters for the elderly did not destroy all viable economic value of the prospective property").

2024Ripeness We next address the City's assertion that 180 Land's takings claim was not ripe, such that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the claim to proceed. "[A]n essential prerequisite to [the] assertion [of a regulatory takings claim] is a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property." MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 348 (1986); see also Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 620 (2001) ("[O]nce it becomes clear that . . . the perrnissible uses of the property are know

2024Ripeness We next address the City's assertion that 180 Land's takings claim was not ripe, such that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the claim to proceed. "[A]n essential prerequisite to [the] assertion [of a regulatory takings claim] is a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property." MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 348 (1986); see also Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 620 (2001) ("[O]nce it becomes clear that . . . the perrnissible uses of the property are know

2022Accordingly, we 3While the right to exclude is a well-established property right, see, e.g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435 (1982), we cannot conclude that appellants have a recognizable real property interest that would be subject to just compensation under a takings analysis since the Legislature did not provide appellants with a statutory right to exclude TNCs from physically invading their territories, nor a statutory right to exclude TNCs from utilizing assets and infrastructure necessary to operate such services.

2013See McCarran Int’l Airport v. Sisolak, 122 Nev. 645, 658 , 137 P.3d 1110, 1119 (2006) (“An individual must have a property interest in order to support a takings claim.”); United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 20 (1958) (“Accordingly, [the claimant] can prevail only if the ‘taking’ occurred while he was the owner.”); see also United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26, 33 (1994) (“Tax legislation is not a promise, and a taxpayer has no vested right in the Internal Revenue Code.”).

2013“It is well established that an individual’s real property interest in land supports a takings claim.’ ’ ASAP Storage, Inc. v. City of Sparks, 123 Nev. 639, 645 , 173 P.3d 734, 738 (2007).

2013“It is well established that an individual’s real property interest in land supports a takings claim.’ ’ ASAP Storage, Inc. v. City of Sparks, 123 Nev. 639, 645 , 173 P.3d 734, 738 (2007).

2009Further, the United States Supreme Court has held that "where an owner possesses a full bundle of property rights, the destruction of one strand of the bundle is not a taking" and that all land-use regulations will have some impact on property values, but "[t]reating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford." Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 324, 327 , 122 S.Ct. 1465 , 152 L.Ed.2d 517 (2002) (internal quotations omitted).

2009Further, the United States Supreme Court has held that "where an owner possesses a full bundle of property rights, the destruction of one strand of the bundle is not a taking" and that all land-use regulations will have some impact on property values, but "[t]reating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford." Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 324, 327 , 122 S.Ct. 1465 , 152 L.Ed.2d 517 (2002) (internal quotations omitted).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007See Florida Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (“Where successive appeals are taken in the same case there is no question of res judicata, because the same suit, and not a new and different one, is involved.

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).

2007Accordingly, although appellants' assertion that any emergency police powers exception would not impact a takings claim is moot, we note that appellants have failed to establish that the City unjustifiably imposed, or unreasonably exercised, its NRS Chapter 414 police powers in this case. [37] 117 Nev. 913 , 34 P.3d 578 (2001). [38] 119 Nev. 549 , 80 P.3d 445 (2003). [39] 117 Nev. at 914, 34 P.3d at 579 . [40] Id. [41] Id. at 915 , 34 P.3d at 580 . [42] Id. [43] Id. at 916 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [44] Id. [45] Id. at 917 , 34 P.3d at 581 . [46] Id. [47] 119 Nev. 549, 552 , 80 P.3d 445, 447 (2003).