Clifton Mfg. Co. v. Crawford-Austin Mfg. Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “the just compensation ripeness requirement does not apply to ‘legitimate state interest’ facial taking claims”
• finding the second Pullman 27 element satisfied where state court provision of just compensation for a taking under 28 state law “might” obviate need to address federal taking claim
• the just compensation ripeness requirement applies to claims premised upon the denial of a property’s economically viable use
• third factor met when “conventional inverse condemnation claim” was not “particularly extraordinary or unique” or “raise[d] a novel claim of statutory interpretation” because the local zoning plan “had not yet been challenged in the state courts”
• so holding as a matter of California law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).