99 Cents Only Stores v. Lancaster Redevelopment Agency
District Court, C.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WILSON, District Judge.
TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff 99 Cents Only Stores (“99 Cents”) alleges that Defendants Lancaster Redevelopment Agency and the City of Lancaster (collectively “Lancaster”) have threatened to take its property in violation of the Fifth Amendment and, accordingly, seek equitable relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In particular, 99 Cents asks the Court to enjoin Lancaster from initiating condemnation proceedings against it on the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1953
- County of Los Angeles v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. MidkiffSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Kelo v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- City of Norwood v. HorneyOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- William Daniels and Judy Daniels v. The Area Plan Commission of Allen CountyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- Cottonwood Christian Center v. Cypress Redevelopment AgencyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2002
- Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.