Legal Opinion

Philip D. Thompson v. Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 9, 1983No. 80-3375PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Both parties accept the district court’s findings of fact. See 496 F.Supp. 530 (D.Or.1980). Briefly, plaintiff owned vacant land suitable for development within the defendant Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. Plaintiff also held an option to purchase adjacent land which would improve access to plaintiff’s land and permit subdivision into a larger number of building lots. The District was not aware of plaintiff’s development plan or of his option to purchase the adjacent property. In May 1976 defendant District filed a condemnation action in Oregon Circuit Court to acquire…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Delaware v. ProuseSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Danforth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  4. Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Agins v. City of TiburonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Evers v. County of CusterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  2. Bosteve Ltd. v. MarauszwkiDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1986
  3. City of Cincinnati v. Chavez PropertiesOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Barsky v. City of WilmingtonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1984
  5. Williams v. MackayDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 2009

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

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

Powered by the Exa API