You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Gene Cashman Athena Sutsos v. City of Cotati, a Municipal Corporation

Citations: 415 F.3d 1027; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14322; 2005 WL 1653734Docket: 03-15066

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 15, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the case of Gene Cashman and Athena Sutsos versus the City of Cotati. The court suspended consideration of the appellee's petition for rehearing until the Supreme Court's decision in *Lingle v. Chevron USA* was issued. Following the Supreme Court's ruling, which clarified that the "substantially advances" formula is not a valid test for takings claims, the Ninth Circuit granted the City of Cotati's petition for rehearing and withdrew its previous opinion from July 15, 2004. Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the City of Cotati, concluding that Cashman's takings claim, which argued that the city's mobilehome park rent control ordinance constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking, was precluded by the principles established in *Lingle*. The petition for rehearing was granted, and the prior opinion was officially withdrawn.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Lower Court's Judgment on Regulatory Takings

Application: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the takings claim based on the city's rent control ordinance was not supported under the principles established in *Lingle*.

Reasoning: Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the City of Cotati, concluding that Cashman's takings claim, which argued that the city's mobilehome park rent control ordinance constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking, was precluded by the principles established in *Lingle*.

Invalidity of 'Substantially Advances' Test for Takings Claims

Application: The court applied the Supreme Court's clarification that the 'substantially advances' formula is not a valid test for determining takings claims, impacting the outcome of the case.

Reasoning: Following the Supreme Court's ruling, which clarified that the 'substantially advances' formula is not a valid test for takings claims, the Ninth Circuit granted the City of Cotati's petition for rehearing and withdrew its previous opinion from July 15, 2004.

Reconsideration of a Case After Supreme Court Ruling

Application: The Ninth Circuit suspended consideration of a rehearing petition pending a Supreme Court decision, and later acted in accordance with the Supreme Court's clarification.

Reasoning: The court suspended consideration of the appellee's petition for rehearing until the Supreme Court's decision in *Lingle v. Chevron USA* was issued.