About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


60 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1 (2020)

handle is hein.journals/saclr60 and id is 1 raw text is: KNICK V TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PA: HOW A GRAVEYARD DISPUTE RESURRECTED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S TAKINGS CLAUSE Brian T. Hodges* The United States Supreme Court's decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pa., holds that a property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under [42 US.C.] §1983 at that time without regard to the availability of state remedies. At first glance, this decision appears to be a modest ruling on ripeness. But in truth, Knick marks a significant development in takings law. Indeed, to reach the ripeness question, Knick concluded that its earlier decision, Williamson County Regional Planning Commis- sion v. Hamilton Bank ofJohnson City, had rest[ed] on a mistaken view of the Fifth Amendment and therefore Knick adopts a very different ap- proach to the Takings Clause. This Note discusses the state of takings law both before, during, and after the demise of Williamson County's state litigation ripeness requirement. By doing so, the Note provides context that will highlight the Court's changed interpretation of the Fifth Amendment and what that change might mean for future takings liti- gants. The Note concludes that Knick will have a significant impact on the development of takings law and litigation practices nationwide. * Brian T. Hodges is a senior attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation and was part of the litigation team representing Rose Mary Knick before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case. Knick v. Township ofScott, Pa.. 139 S. Ct. 2162. 2170 *2019). J.D., Seattle University School of Law, 2001; M.A., University of Washington, 1998; B.A., University of Washington, 1996.