McCann v. Kessler

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that substantive due process concepts “may not be used in order to mount an end run” around those requirements”
• “[I]t is not clear why the concept of substantive due process should have any place in takings cases.”
• “[w]hen the state has physically occupied or invaded the plaintiffs property, there is generally no need to ask the relevant state decisionmaker to clarify its final position in order to determine whether a taking has occurred”
• “The takings clause itself addresses whether and under what circumstances the government may take an individual’s private property, which is why a number of circuits have concluded that no room is left for the concept of substantive due process.”
• “In holding that the tract owner’s claim was not ripe, the Supreme Court took pains to distinguish the concept of finality from the somewhat related but distinct concept of exhaustion of state rem edies.”
• Williamson County requirements not applicable to takings claim based on private-use theory

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).