# 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/9432513

## 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 Souter
- **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/9432513

## 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 Souter,
concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment and would join the Court’s opinion except for its references to the relevance and significance of petitioners’ allegations to a claim of regulatory taking.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432513. Public record. Not legal advice.