Legal Opinion
Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz
District Court, N.D. California
Decided October 29, 1985No. C-80-2863-MHPPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MEMORANDUM DECISION
PATEL, District Judge.
Plaintiffs have instituted this action on a variety of theories and jurisdictional grounds. The gravamen of the particular claims submitted to the court for .trial at this stage of the proceedings is that the adoption of Measure 0 deprives them of their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. A claim for damages and other relief is made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs have also alleged violations under §§ 1985…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Margaret Kinzli Evelyn Goossen Philip Kinzli Ernest Kinzli, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa CruzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Zilber v. Town of MoragaDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1988
- Electri-Tech, Inc. v. H F Campbell Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1989
- Electri-Tech, Inc. v. H F Campbell Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1989