Legal Opinion
ADAM BROS. FARMING v. County of Santa Barbara
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 14, 2010No. 09-55315PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BEEZER, Circuit Judge:
Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. and Iceberg Holdings, L.L.C. (collectively “Adam Bros.”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their joint complaint. Adam Bros, sued the County of Santa Barbara and several of its employees (collectively “the county”) in federal court, alleging that the county had, through a false wetland delineation, temporarily taken its land without providing just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The district court granted the county’s motion to dismiss and concluded that Adam Bros.’s claim was not ripe because Adam Bros, failed to…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Brodheim v. CryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Stormans, Inc. v. SeleckyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- MHC Financing Ltd. Partnership v. City of San RafaelCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Bridge Aina Le'a, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use CommissionDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2015
- Bryan v. City of CarlsbadDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2018
- Peyman Pakdel v. City and Cty. of S.F.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Michael Cobb v. City of StocktonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.