Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bettendorf v. St. Croix County

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided January 20, 2011No. 10-1359Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHamilton, Circuit Judge

I agree with my colleagues that plaintiff Bettendorf has no viable due process claim here, and I join those portions of Judge Bauer’s opinion. I respectfully dissent, however, from my colleagues’ decision to affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs takings claim under state law.

The majority’s decision gives our court’s approval, on bare pleadings, to a rare and extraordinary burden on property rights. The majority is saying that a local government can first designate a lawful use of property, allowing a property owner to make substantial investments in the property and to use it that way for more…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  5. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API