Ripeness | Knick

Subscribe to Ripeness | Knick via RSS

This one is worth your time to review.

In HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit, No. 23-1847 (Dec. 22, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff/owner and a jury verdict on just compensation.

The case is notable not only for the fact it’s a property owner win, but that the usual procedural hurdles an owner is forced to jump through were successfully navigated. For example, the city’s assertion that the takings claim was both not ripe, and res judicata. Yes, in the city’s view, the claim was simultaneously too early and too late.

The first sentence of the opinion tells you that the focus of the analysis is going to be the res judicata question:

After losing in state court, HRT Enterprises sued the City of Detroit in federal court under a…

Continue Reading CA6 Affirms Detroit Land Bank Taking: New Facts Defeat Res Judicata

Check out this new (ish) cert petition which asks whether the “final decision” ripeness rule that currently governs regulatory takings cases is also applicable when the right alleged to have been violated is procedural due process.

The petition sets out how the lower federal courts have dealt with the question:

This case presents an important and recurring question that has divided the courts of appeals: whether procedural due process claims asserted in land-use disputes are subject to the same accrual rule as takings claims. Two circuits—the Second and Third—have held that they are. Five others—the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth—have held they are not.

Pet. at 2. This case reverses the usual dynamic in takings cases (where generally, owners assert the claim is ripe because the government has made it clear what uses it will and won’t allow), because the Second Circuit held that the case was ripe a…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Are Procedural Due Process Claims Subject To The Same Ripeness Rules As Takings Claims?

In Grand v. City of University Heights, No. 24-3876 (Nov. 13, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a complaint alleging a RLUIPA claim and others was not ripe because they are “land use” claims subject to Williamson County‘s final decision requirement.

A neighbor was “displeased” that Grand was using his home to hold a “shul,” which “in Hebrew refers to a synagogue or a house where prayers are held.” Slip op. at 2. The city told him to stop because his use as “a place of religious assembly” violated the zoning code (his home is zoned U-1, which doesn’t allow such uses).

Grand applied for a Special Use Permit, which would allow him to make the use as a “house of worship.” The Planning Commission had a hearing, but didn’t make a decision. It “tabled the discussion, requesting more details…

Continue Reading CA6: RLUIPA Claim Subject To Williamson County Final Decision Ripeness Because It’s A “Land Use” Issue

A short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which asks: when the government is holding your abandoned property for you, do you have to ask for it to return it to you before you can bring a takings claim?

In Dillow v. Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 24-2004 (Oct. 3, 2025), the court held yes: the owner’s takings claim was not ripe because he had not asked the Treasurer to give the property back.

This is a non-precedential opinion so it is short. But there are two interesting parts that you should focus on.

First, the description of Pennsylvania’s system of unclaimed property. Pennsylvania deemed Dillow’s property — an uncashed claims payment check and a bank draft — to be “unclaimed,” and the Treasurer took custody and converted them to cash. Dillow did not file a claim for the cash. He acknowledged…

Continue Reading CA3: No Taking Until You Ask For Your Property Back
2011-05-14_16-31-39_422

Who likes paying a lot for prescription medications? Anyone?

Oregon sure didn’t like it, and it was going to do something about it. In 2018, it adopted a statute the “Prescription Drug Price Transparency Act,” which requires manufacturers to report to the State information about costs, revenues, and prices of certain prescription drugs. The Act also requires the State to disclose, in the public interest, much or all of that information to the public, provided that information is not a trade secret. Oregon has not actually disclosed any trade secrets. 

An industry association (PhARMA) sued, asserting inter alia, a facial takings claim. The District Court granted PhRMA summary judgment, concluding that the publication of trade secrets under the public-interest exception is a taking requiring compensation.   

In Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Stolfi, No. 24-1570 (Aug. 26, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth…

Continue Reading CA9: Pharma Has No Expectation Of Nondisclosure, So State Disclosing Trade Secrets Is Not A Penn Central Taking

It appears that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has addressed the issue the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped recently in DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024): do you need Congress’s ok to sue for just compensation for a taking?  

In Fulton v. Fulton County Bd of Commissioners, No. 22012041 (July 31, 2025), a 2-1 panel of the court held that the Just Compensation Clause is indeed “self-executing,” meaning that even in the absence of a legislative recognition of a cause of action, an owner whose private property has (allegedly) been taken by government action may sue for compensation. 

The opinion starts off dramatically, with this:

In Greek mythology, the Greek gods condemned Tantalus to eternal hunger and thirst, all while forcing him to forever stand in a shallow pool of water under a tree with low-hanging fruit. Though the remedy for Tantalus’s hunger and…

Continue Reading CA11: Congress Doesn’t Need To Legislate A Cause Of Action For Just Compensation

What’s going on in the Sixth Circuit? First, there was this opinion in Howard v. Macomb County, which in our view really missed the Knick vibe and resurrected the overruled Williamson County “state procedures” requirement.

Now there’s a doubling down, OPV  Partners, LLC v. City of Lansing, No. 24-2035 (July 9, 2025). Unpublished, most likely because it doesn’t add anything new to an existing existing circuit split, and relies on Howard. Neither OPV nor Howard uses the word “exhaustion” or even mentions Williamson County or worse yet, Knick. Nor do they mention administrative remedies. But that’s sure what it looks like to us.

The issue in OPV was whether the city is liable for, inter alia, taking OPV’s private property by denying a certificate of occupancy for residential units that OPV rented. The city had flagged these units for maintenance problems and hit them with “pink”…

Continue Reading CA6 Adds To Williamson County Resurrection: You “Forfeit” Your Takings Claim When You Don’t Exhaust Administrative Procedures To Ask For Compensation

Take a look at the New Jersey Appellate Division’s opinion in Johnson v. City of East Orange, No. A-2586-23 (June 27, 2025). 

The court vacated the dismissal of a property owner’s takings claim, holding that it was timely. We aren’t going into too much detail because this one is out of our shop. As the opinion notes:

Pacific Legal Foundation, plaintiff’s counsel in the instant matter, represented the plaintiff in Tyler, and appeared as amicus curiae in both the appellate, 257-261 20th Avenue Realty, LLC v. Roberto (Roberto I), 477 N.J. Super. 339 (App. Div. 2023), and state Supreme Court, 257-261 20th Avenue Realty, LLC v. Roberto (Roberto II), 259 N.J. 417 (2025), proceedings in what became the first published authority applying the holding in Tyler in this state.”

Slip op. at 2.  

But here are some of the highlights:

  • A takings claim does not accrue, and

…
Continue Reading NJ App: Takings Claim Accrues When Govt Keeps Property It Should Return To The Owner

Please add this one to your podcast listening queue: the latest episode of Bound by Oath, produced by John Ross at the Institute for Justice. BBO isn’t a typical podcast, but more of an audio documentary as we have noted before. If you aren’t a subscriber, you really should be. 

This episode focuses on regulatory takings, and the sleight-of-law that governments frequently employ to avoid the merits of takings claims, or perhaps worse yet to avoid paying compensation even after ordered to. Cases detailed include DeVillier, Agins, First English, Violet Dock Port, Ariyan. This episode is a great companion piece to BBO‘s episodes on Euclid (zoning), Pennsylvania Coal (reg takings), and Berman (Public Use). 

Put on your “self-executing” hat and take a listen! 

Here’s the description of the episode:

The Fifth Amendment says that the government must pay just compensation when it takes…

Continue Reading Must-Listen Podcast: “Neat Takings Tricks” (Bound by Oath, S3, E3)

SCOTUSdoor
Knocking on the Supreme Court’s door

Earlier this week in this Order, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review four property rights cert petitions (three of which were ours):

Is this a sign, something we should place any significance in?

Of course, reading Supreme Court tea leaves is a fool’s errand except for nine people, none of whom are talking. Sometimes there are hints, such as dissents from cert denials, or statements. Not this time. Just what might be considered “routine” denials.

We don’t think that these denials should tell us much of anything about some…

Continue Reading Should We Make Anything Of The Supreme Court’s Denial Of Four Property Rights Petitions?