Agins v. City of Tiburon
Citations
- 447 U.S. 255
- 100 S. Ct. 2138
- 65 L. Ed. 2d 106
- 1980 U.S. LEXIS 132
- 10 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20361
- 14 ERC (BNA) 1555
About this case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1980 United States Supreme Court case
Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the test for determining whether a zoning ordinance or governmental regulation will be considered a taking is whether such action “substantially advances” a legitimate state interest.
The Court subsequently overruled this decision twenty-five years later in _Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. _, 554 U.S. 528 (2005).
Background
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agins_v._City_of_Tiburon&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
]
California state law required the city to prepare a general plan governing both land use and the development of open space land.
After Dr and Ms Agins acquired 5 acres (20,000 m2) of unimproved property zoned one house per acre, the city announced that it intended to acquire it, and issued bonds to finance the taking. It filed an eminent domain action, but on the eve of trial abandoned it. Instead, it amended the zoning ordinance placing the subject land in a zone that permitted construction of one to five homes, the exact number being discretionary with the city. The owners contended that the applying for permit(s) to construct seriatim of one to five home would be economically infeasible and that the city intended to convert their land into open space by preventing its development. They sued seeking just compensation for a regulatory taking .
The owners alleged that their land had greater value than other land in California because of its spectacular views of San Francisco Bay, and the rezoning prevented economically feasible development, thereby completely destroying its value, and thus effecting its taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments .
The California Supreme Court refused to recognize the existence of a regulatory taking cause of action, and held that the only remedy available to the owner would be a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to invalidate the regulation on grounds of denial of substantive due process.
Court's decision
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agins_v._City_of_Tiburon&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Court's decision")
]
The question in this case was whether the ordinances took Agins' property without just compensation.
The complaint framed the question as to whether a state court's decision to deny compensation for regulatory takings was constitutional, and whether a zoning ordinance that de facto forbade all development of their land effected a taking under the 5th and 14th Amendments. However, as noted, because the owners had not yet applied for a permit for development, the court found that the issue of whether an as-applied taking occurred, was not yet ripe for decision. Therefore, the only issue left was whether this zoning ordinance constituted a taking on its face.
The Court held that a general zoning law can be a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest or denies an owner economically viable use of his land. In spite of its finding of lack of ripeness , the U. S. Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court's holding that the zoning ordinances did not on their face effect an uncompensated taking.
External links
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agins_v._City_of_Tiburon&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: External links")
]
- Text of Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) is available from: Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
United States Fifth Amendment case law
United States Fifth Amendment criminal procedure case law
Gideon Kanner and Michael M Berger, The Nasty, Brutish and Short Life of Agins v. City of Tiburon, 50 Urban Lawyer 1 (2020)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agins_v._City_of_Tiburon&oldid=1351959428 "
Hidden categories:
Search
Search
Agins v. City of Tiburon
Add languages Add topic
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a zoning ordinance did not diminish a property owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations to the extent necessary to establish a regulatory taking
- holding that municipal zoning ordinances rezoning private residential property and allowing one to five single-family residences on five-acre tract did not constitute taking without just compensation
- holding that a land use regulation does not effect a taking if it \substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests” and does not \denfy] an owner economically viable use of his land.”
- holding that there is no right to monetary compensation for a regulatory taking in an inverse condemnation action
- holding that a challenge to the application of a zoning ordinance was not ripe because the property owners had not yet submitted a plan for development of their property
- holding that a land use regulation does not effect a taking if it “substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests” and does (continued...
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Powell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.