Case Summary Citation
Martin v. United States, 894 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Abstract
In Martin v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings and exaction claim for want of ripeness when the claimant failed to apply for a permit, which would have allowed for an assessment of the cost of compliance with governmentally imposed requirements. By finding the claim unripe, the court stood firm on the historical view that federal courts may only adjudicate land-use regulatory takings and inverse condemnation claims on the merits after a regulating entity has made a final decision. However, jurisprudential evolution of the ripeness doctrine and judicial review of takings claims may be forthcoming as the United States Supreme Court is set to deliver a decision in Knick v. Township of Scott.
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, Courts Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons