Austin v. City & County of Honolulu
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:
In this case we consider whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) concerning inverse condemnation and ripeness, applies in cases in which state remedies available to the claimant are uncertain and undeveloped. We conclude that it does. Until Austin pursues unsuccessfully compensation in the state courts or those courts establish that he may not recover compensation through inverse condemnation procedures, his claim is not ripe for federal court review.
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Parratt v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. Winston Bryant McConneyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- United Public Workers of America v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Samaad v. City of DallasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
- Iowa Coal Mining Co. v. Monroe CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1996
- Asociación De Subscripción Conjunta Del Seguro De Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Flores GalarzaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2007
- Austin v. City and County of HonoluluCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of CarsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.