# Yee v. City of Escondido

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 1, 1992 · 503 U.S. 519

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432512

## Case

- **Full name:** YEE Et Al. v. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 1, 1992
- **Citations:** 503 U.S. 519; 112 S. Ct. 1522; 118 L. Ed. 2d 153; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 2115
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Blackmun, Souter
- **Cited by:** 848 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled in part by Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432512

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “[w]here the government authorizes a physical occupation of property (or actually takes title), the Takings Clause generally requires Case: 19-1385 Document: 124 Page: 13 Filed: 05/29/2020 CAQUELIN v. UNITED STATES 13 compensation” and that “[this] category of …
- stating that the effect of the rent control ordinance at issue might have some bearing were the case brought as a regulatory takings claim since it could “shed some light on whether there is a sufficient nexus between the effect of the ordinance and the objectives it is suppos…
- explaining the Takings Clause requires compensation where “the extent to which [the regulation] deprives the owner of the economic use of the property suggests] that the regulation has unfairly singled out the property owner to bear a burden that should be borne by the public …
- holding that a challenge to a rent control ordinance was ripe, even where no rent increases had been sought, because the claim was premised on the notion that the ordinance did "not 'substantially advance' a 'legitimate state interest' no matter how it is applied."

## Opinion text

Justice Blackmun,
concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that the Escondido ordinance is not a taking under this Court’s analysis in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982). I also conclude that the substantive due process and regulatory taking claims are not properly raised in this Court. For that reason, I, unlike the Court, do not decide whether the regulatory taking claim is or is not ripe, or which of petitioners’ arguments would or would not be relevant to such a claim.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432512. Public record. Not legal advice.