California First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles - Decision, Significance, Impact

appellant diego property justices

Appellant

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale

Appellee

County of Los Angeles, California

Appellant's Claim

The "interim ordinance" adopted by the County of Los Angeles denied the appellant's right to use of his property and violated the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Chief Lawyer for Appellant

Michael M. Berger

Chief Lawyer for Appellee

Jack R. White

Justices for the Court

William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

Harry A. Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

9 June 1987

Related Cases

Agins v. Tiburon, 24 Cal. 266 (1979).
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U.S. 621 (1981).
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985).
MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340 (1986).
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).

California First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles - Significance

The ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court clarified criteria which defined differences and actions in temporary and permanent takings. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale bought a parcel of land in 1957. The parcel consisted of 21 acres of which 12 acres were flat land in a valley of the Middle Fork of Mill Creek in the Angeles National Forest. Later, the appellant, used this ground t…

California First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles - Impact

The significance of the case is the Court's ruling itself. In a later case, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a regulatory taking was justifiable if it prevented a nuisance, was not unnecessarily restrictive, and was consistent with a state's common law practices regarding property nuisances. However, the regulatory taking in which Los Angeles County…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.