Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City
- Decided
- June 28, 1985
- Docket
- 84-4
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,607 timesOverruled in part (verified)Overruled in part by Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (U.S. June 21, 2019) (2019) (verified: Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress) · Knick v. Township of Scott
What later courts said
- holding that a takings claim was not ripe because the developer did not seek a variance — Bain v. Town of Argyle (2007)
- holding that constitutional challenge brought' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to. application of zoning ordinance was not ripe until the aggrieved party applied for a variance — Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach, Va. (1993)
- holding that federal takings claim is not reviewable in federal court until plaintiff has sought compensation from state and been denied — Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Commission (2015)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*175] Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, the owner of a tract of land it was developing as a residential subdivision, sued petitioners, the Williamson County (Tennessee) Regional Planning Commission and its members and staff, in United States District Court, alleging that petitioners’ application of various zoning laws and regulations to respondent’s property amounted to a “taking” of that property. At trial, the jury agreed and awarded respondent $350,000 as just compensation for the “taking.” Although the jury’s verdict was rejected by the District Court, which granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to petitioners, the verdict was reinstated on appeal. Petitioners and their amici urge this Court to overturn the jury’s award on the ground that a temporary regulatory interference with an investor’s profit expectation does not constitute a “taking” within the meaning of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment,[1] or, alternatively, on the ground that even if such interference does constitute a taking, the Just Compensation Clause does not require money damages as recompense. Before we reach those con [*176] tentions, we examine the procedural posture of respondent’s claim.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.