just compensation clause in Washington

1998To the extent Armendariz could have left any lingering doubts, the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Macri v. King County, 110 F.3d 1496, 1500 (9th Cir.) (quoting as authority the language from Armendariz cited supra, this paragraph), amended and superseded on denial of reh’g en banc, 126 F.3d 1125 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1153 (1998), a case involving a claim against a public agency, erased them.

1998To the extent Armendariz could have left any lingering doubts, the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Maori v. King County, 110 F.3d 1496, 1500 (9th Cir.) (quoting as authority the language from Armendariz cited supra, this paragraph), amended and superseded on denial of reh'g en banc, 126 F.3d 1125 (1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 118 S.Ct. 1178 , ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (1998), a case involving a claim against a public agency, erased them.

2006Ed. 2d 435 (1979) (The just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment required payment of only the fair market value rather than the replacement cost of the property taken.); Thompson v. King Feed & Nutrition Serv., Inc., 153 Wn.2d 447, 459 , 105 P.3d 378 (2005) (fair market value of a barn estimated to be $300,000 while the replacement cost of the barn was estimated at over $500,000); State v. Smith, 42 Wn.

2006App. 399, 401 , 711 P.2d 372 (1985) (Appellant argued an “insurance company could recover only the fair market value, not the replacement cost, of the items stolen and later recovered and sold by the insurer.”), review denied, 105 Wn.2d 1010 (1986).

2006Ed. 2d 435 (1979) (The just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment required payment of only the fair market value rather than the replacement cost of the property taken.); Thompson v. King Feed & Nutrition Serv., Inc., 153 Wn.2d 447, 459 , 105 P.3d 378 (2005) (fair market value of a barn estimated to be $300,000 while the replacement cost of the barn was estimated at over $500,000); State v. Smith, 42 Wn.

2006Ed. 2d 435 (1979) (The just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment required payment of only the fair market value rather than the replacement cost of the property taken.); Thompson v. King Feed & Nutrition Serv., Inc., 153 Wn.2d 447, 459 , 105 P.3d 378 (2005) (fair market value of a barn estimated to be $300,000 while the replacement cost of the barn was estimated at over $500,000); State v. Smith, 42 Wn.

1998To the extent Armendariz could have left any lingering doubts, the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Macri v. King County, 110 F.3d 1496, 1500 (9th Cir.) (quoting as authority the language from Armendariz cited supra, this paragraph), amended and superseded on denial of reh’g en banc, 126 F.3d 1125 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1153 (1998), a case involving a claim against a public agency, erased them.

1998To the extent Armendariz could have left any lingering doubts, the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Maori v. King County, 110 F.3d 1496, 1500 (9th Cir.) (quoting as authority the language from Armendariz cited supra, this paragraph), amended and superseded on denial of reh'g en banc, 126 F.3d 1125 (1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 118 S.Ct. 1178 , ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (1998), a case involving a claim against a public agency, erased them.

1997Justice Brennan's dissent in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621, 658 , 101 S.Ct. 1287, 1307 , 67 L.Ed.2d 551 (1981), argued monetary loss from a temporary regulatory taking ought to be compensable under the Just Compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment.

1997Justice Brennan's dissent in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621, 658 , 101 S.Ct. 1287, 1307 , 67 L.Ed.2d 551 (1981), argued monetary loss from a temporary regulatory taking ought to be compensable under the Just Compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment.

1989Thus, Cascade contends, RCW 8.25.075 is meant to be applied only where private property is taken for public use, citing Petersen v. Port of Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 479, 487 , 618 P.2d 67 (1980).

1989Thus, Cascade contends, RCW 8.25.075 is meant to be applied only where private property is taken for public use, citing Petersen v. Port of Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 479, 487 , 618 P.2d 67 (1980).

1976The court applied the rule noted above to these circumstances and concluded that the just compensation requirement would be satisfied if valuation were made on a date “reasonably related to events in the vicinity of the property taken whereby the appropriating authority’s activity contributed to or caused substantial depreciation of the property taken.” In Uvodich v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 9 Ariz. App. 400 , 453 P.2d 229 (1969), the university announced an expansion program which required the purchase of 13 residential blocks.

1976The court applied the rule noted above to these circumstances and concluded that the just compensation requirement would be satisfied if valuation were made on a date “reasonably related to events in the vicinity of the property taken whereby the appropriating authority’s activity contributed to or caused substantial depreciation of the property taken.” In Uvodich v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 9 Ariz. App. 400 , 453 P.2d 229 (1969), the university announced an expansion program which required the purchase of 13 residential blocks.