MHC Financing Ltd. Partnership v. City of San Rafael

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an eighty-one percent diminution in value was not sufficient to constitute a regulatory taking
• holding that an 81% diminution in value was not sufficient to constitute a regulatory taking
• reasoning that an “81% diminution in value ... would not have been sufficient economic loss or interference with [the plaintiffs] reasonable investment-backed expectations to constitute a taking”
• setting forth elements of res judicata under California law and discussing the primary rights theory of res judicata under California law
• taking issue with valuation evidence based on a hypothetical state of affairs but nevertheless assuming it could show economic impact
• upholding San Rafael’s MRSO and finding that the ordinance does not violate the public use requirement or constitute a regulatory taking

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).