Margaret Kinzli Evelyn Goossen Philip Kinzli Ernest Kinzli, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa Cruz

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that procedural due process claim was unripe because the city-defendant had “not yet made a final decision regarding the property”
• meaningful application requirement mandates that applicants submit at least one thorough application and not abandon it at early stage
• application “not meaningful since it was abandoned at an early stage in the application process”
• even if a landowner has submitted development plans and been rejected, an applied regulatory taking case might still not be ripe; a landowner must submit a “meaningful” application for development
• “[The] absen[ce of] any rejected development plan . 4 . . would result in the same sort of speculation that the ripeness doctrine prohibits.”
• no denial of procedural due process because substantive due process claim not ripe

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).