Did the state courts effectuate a taking of petitioner's attorney fees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner is a solo practicing attorney who provided legal services to respondents in an eminent domain matter brought by the State of Oregon in its state court. He sought to collect his attorney fees under a written fee agreement and a statutory lien securing his right to be paid. This petition arises from the separate state court proceeding for collection of the secured debt, and the court’s failure to foreclose his lien. Nearly seven years have passed since petitioner perfected his lien in the eminent domain matter, yet he remains unpaid. After a jury trial, the state court of general jurisdiction (circuit court) dismissed petitioner’s complaint. It refused to enter judgment in favor of petitioner to disburse the fee the State owed, and which the court collected and continues to hold in its bank account. Petitioner has also been denied any remedy on appeal. The questions presented are: 1. Did the state circuit court effectuate a “taking” for purposes of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when it dismissed petitioner’s lawsuit without exercising its judgment to disburse his fee from such court’s bank account? . | 2. Did the state appellate court effectuate a “taking” as above when affirming such judgment of dismissal? eee ener nee & cece eecee ee Identification of