Legal Opinion

Guggenheim v. City of Goleta

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 22, 2010No. 06-56306PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by Judge KLEINFELD; Dissent by Judge BEA.

OPINION

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:

We address the viability of a takings claim arising out of a rent control ordinance affecting mobile home parks.

I. Facts

In 1979, Santa Barbara County, California adopted a rent control ordinance for mobile homes. 1 Mobile homes have the peculiar characteristic of separating ownership of homes that are, as a practical matter, affixed to the land, from the land itself. 2 Because the owner of the mobile home cannot readily move it to get a lower rent, the owner of the land has the owner of the mobile home over a…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Capri Mobile Villa LLC v. City of PetalumaDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2026
  2. Rose v. Fresno Food Concept, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2022
  3. Rosedale Missionary Baptist v. New Orleans CityCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API