Patel v. City of Anaheim
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
The Patels appeal the district court’s decision that the City of Anaheim’s denial of two applications for conditional use permits (“CUPs”) to operate a motel did not violate federal or state law. We affirm.
I
The Patels first appeal the district court’s summary judgment that their Fifth Amendment takings claim was not ripe for adjudication. We review both summary judgment and ripeness decisions de novo. See Kern v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 1069-70 (9th Cir.2002).
Generally, Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Armendariz v. PenmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Balubhai G. Patel, et al. v. City of Henderson, et al.District Court, D. Nevada · 2025