Guggenheim v. City of Goleta
Opinion
598 F.3d 1061 (2010)
Daniel GUGGENHEIM; Susan Guggenheim; Maureen H. Pierce, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF GOLETA, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-56306.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 12, 2010.
Mark D. Alpert, Esquire, Robert S. Coldren, Esquire, Hart King & Coldren, PC, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Bruce C. Gridley, Esquire, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, Los Angeles, CA, Amy Eileen Hoyt, Esquire, Burke Williams & Sorerensen, LLP, Riverside, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 8 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that the first two factors are the “primary” factors to consider; the character of the governmental action is not on equal footing)
-
(noting that this court is “bound by precedent establishing that such laws do have a rational basis”)
-
(stating that Penn Central’s reference to “distinct” means “capable of being easily perceived, or characterized by individualizing qualities” and “‘[d]istinct investment-backed expectations’ implies reasonable probability” of recovery on the investments)
-
(indicating that investment-backed expectations are 4 informed by “the burden of rent control”)
-
(assuming without deciding that claim was ripe because ripeness considerations were prudential)
-
(“The Guggenheims challenge only the 2002 City of Goleta ordinance, not the 1979 or 1987 County of Santa Barbara ordinances.”)
-
(“The idea, 19 after all, of the constitutional protection we enjoy in the security of our property against 20 confiscation is to protect the property we have, not the property we dream of getting.”)
Cited by 46 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.