Search for: "Mobile Transportation Co. v. Mobile"
Results 1 - 20
of 161
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Aug 2021, 1:36 pm
Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc. [read post]
18 May 2011, 1:08 pm
In December, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the ordinance, rejecting the Guggenheim’s regulatory takings claim finding that none of the three factors for establishing a regulatory taking, set forth Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2010, 6:04 am
In McCoy v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 9:14 am
In this 2-1 decision by Judge Bybee, the Court found that Goleta’s mobile home rent control ordinance caused a facial regulatory taking for which compensation must be paid (under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
18 May 2011, 1:08 pm
In December, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the ordinance, rejecting the Guggenheim’s regulatory takings claim finding that none of the three factors for establishing a regulatory taking, set forth Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
Ninth Circuit En Banc Panel Finds Goleta’s Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance Did Not Cause a Taking
23 Dec 2010, 11:22 am
The court found that the plaintiffs did not have a regulatory takings claim because none of the three factors for establishing a regulatory taking, set forth Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
16 May 2011, 7:24 am
Property owners asked the Court to review the Ninth Circuit's sharply divided en banc opinion, which held that the City's mobile home rent control ordinance did not work a regulatory taking because the fact that the Guggenheims purchased their property subject to a rent-control regime was "fatal" to their investment-backed expectations under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 6:31 pm
Co. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 12:20 pm
After the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
8 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
… Canadian National Railway Co. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:00 am
Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005). [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 6:41 am
CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC, the appeal court affirmed an order to compel arbitration of wage-and-hour claims in light of the 2011 United States Supreme Court case AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 3:01 am
The court found the case ripe under Williamson County, and addressed the merits of the takings claim under the three-factor regulatory taking test of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
12 Aug 2014, 9:42 pm
1753]; see American Express Co. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:00 am
Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005). [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 2:38 pm
Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 8:04 am
AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 5:09 pm
Guggenheim argues that the ordinance, which effects a transfer of nearly 90 percent of the property value from the mobile home park owners to mobile home tenants, constitutes a regulatory taking under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 3:00 am
Lester v. [read post]
4 Sep 2018, 9:43 am
Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1338(Fed. [read post]
