2006•The William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository (William & Mary)Open access

The Demise of Federal Takings Litigation

Stewart E. Sterk

Open full text 4 citations

Abstract

For more than twenty years the Supreme Court has held that a federal takings claim is not ripe until the claimant seeks compensation in state court. The Court's recent opinion in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco establishes that the federal full faith and credit statute applies to federal takings claims. The Court itself recognized that its decision limits the availability of a federal forum for takings claims. In fact, however, claim preclusion doctrine-not considered or discussed by the Court-may result in more stringent limits on federal court review of takings claims than the Court's opinion anticipates. The counterintuitive result-that federal takings claims must be litigated in state court-plays a critical role in the Supreme Court's emerging takings jurisprudence, which largely delegates to state courts the primary responsibility for policing land use regulation.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

For more than twenty years the Supreme Court has held that a federal takings claim is not ripe until the claimant seeks compensation in state court. The Court's recent opinion in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco establishes that the federal full faith and credit statute applies to federal takings claims. The Court itself recognized that its decision limits the availability of a federal forum for takings claims. In fact, however, claim preclusion doctrine-not considered or discussed by the Court-may result in more stringent limits on federal court review of takings claims than the Court's opinion anticipates. The counterintuitive result-that federal takings claims must be litigated in state court-plays a critical role in the Supreme Court's emerging takings jurisprudence, which largely delegates to state courts the primary responsibility for policing land use regulation.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

For more than twenty years the Supreme Court has held that a federal takings claim is not ripe until the claimant seeks compensation in state court. The Court's recent opinion in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco establishes that the federal full faith and credit statute applies to federal takings claims. The Court itself recognized that its decision limits the availability of a federal forum for takings claims. In fact, however, claim preclusion doctrine-not considered or discussed by the Court-may result in more stringent limits on federal court review of takings claims than the Court's opinion anticipates. The counterintuitive result-that federal takings claims must be litigated in state court-plays a critical role in the Supreme Court's emerging takings jurisprudence, which largely delegates to state courts the primary responsibility for policing land use regulation.

Key concepts: Supreme court, Law, Political science, Jurisprudence, Eminent domain, State (computer science), Jurisdiction, Original jurisdiction

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Demise of Federal Takings Litigation — Research Paper | ScholarLens