Whether a regulation that causes a property temporary but substantial cash losses is immune as a matter law from regulatory takings scrutiny if these substantial cash losses do not cause a dramatic decrease in the total value of the property

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court held in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), that determining whether regulatory action constitutes a taking requires balancing the character and extent of economic impact of the regulatory action on a party, the extent of interference of the regulatory action with a party’s distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the regulatory action. And the Court held in City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999), that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury applies to regulatory takings claims against municipalities. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a regulation that causes a property temporary but substantial cash losses is immune as a matter law from regulatory takings scrutiny if these substantial cash losses do not cause a dramatic decrease in the total value of the property. 2. Whether an appellate court reviewing a jury verdict in a takings case is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to that verdict.