certifying under § 1292(b) the question of a regulatory taking and specifically noting that whether government regulation of private property amounts to a regulatory taking “depends largely upon the particular circumstances [of each] case—that is, on essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries” and engaging in the requisite factual inquiry (alterations in original) (quoting Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978))
How later courts described this case
- certifying under § 1292(b) the question of a regulatory taking and specifically noting that whether government regulation of private property amounts to a regulatory taking “depends largely upon the particular circumstances [of each] case—that is, on essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries” and engaging in the requisite factual inquiry (alterations in original) (quoting Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978))
- explaining that “courts should .consider” the Senate factors in vote-denial cases
- explaining that “courts should consider” the Gingles factors in vote-denial cases
- recognizing an exception to the law of the case doctrine where “intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BERZON, Circuit Judge,
concurring, with whom
MURGUIA, Circuit Judge, joins:
I fully concur in the majority opinion but note the following: With respect to whether Proposition 200’s polling place provision “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color” in violation of § 2(a) of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (a), the court holds only that the current record is insufficient to show a “causal connection between the challenged voting practice and [a] prohibited discriminatory result,” Smith v. Salt River Project Agrie. Improvement & Power Dist., 109 F.3d 586 , 595 (9th Cir.1997) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). I concur in Section III.A of the majority opinion with that understanding of its limited reach. A different record in a future case could produce a different outcome with regard to the § 2 causation question.