Marc Richard Saunders v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an asserted loss of 24.8% of value was “far too small to establish a 2 regulatory taking”
• explaining that courts are loath to find a taking where diminution of value is less than 50 percent and have found no taking even where diminution is between 75 and 92.5 percent
• finding no objectively reasonable investment-backed 9 expectations despite two decades of experience in the same municipality and favorable 10 appellate case citations
• noting courts have rejected finding 5 regulatory takings for diminutions “ranging from 75% to 92.5%”
• noting the lack of cases in which “a court has found a taking where diminution in value was less than 50 percent” (quoting CCA Assocs. v. United States, 667 F.3d 1239, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2011))
• comparing “the value that has been taken from the property with the value that remains in the property” and emphasizing that the plaintiff’s expectations must be objectively reasonable (quoting Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 497 (1987)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).