Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that facial and as-applied takings claims “raise[] different ripeness and statute of limitations issues”
• noting that facial and as-applied takings claims \raise[] different ripeness and statute of limitations issues\
• holding an amended complaint was not part of the record on appeal because it was “lodged with, but not accepted for filing by, the district court”
• holding an 34 DEMAREE V. PEDERSON amended complaint was not part of the record on appeal because it was “lodged with, but not accepted for filing by, the district court”
• holding the district court “properly entertained the statute of limitations issue” when the issue was not argued in the briefing but was “pleaded . . . in its answer, and thus preserved . . .”
• agreeing that “the district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint as untimely so long as the defendant has not waived the defense” and the losing party “had the opportunity to present argument” on the issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).