Whether Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019) and Pakdel v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, 141 S.Ct. 2226 (2021) have sanctioned a pervasive misunderstanding of the finality ripeness requirement established by Williamson County Regional Planning Commission et al. v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 US. 172 (1985)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019) and Pakdel v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, 141 S.Ct. 2226 (2021) have sanctioned a pervasive misunderstanding of the finality ripeness requirement established by Williamson County Regional Planning Commission et al. v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 US. 172 (1985). ii LIST OF ALL PARTIES The party to the judgment from which review is sought is Petitioner Nicholas Honchariw, Trustee of the Honchariw Family Trust U/A/D March 8, 1991, as amended. He was a party in all proceedings below. Respondents are the County of Stanislaus and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Stanislaus. RELATED CASES Honchariw, Ttee v. County of Stanislaus, No. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Judgment entered Nov. 14, 2016. Honchariw, Ttee v. County of Stanislaus, No. 16-17256, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered March 22, 2018. Honchariw, Ttee v. County of Stanislaus, No. 18-294, U.S. Supreme Court. Judgment entered June 28, 2019. Honchariw, Ttee v. County of Stanislaus, No. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Judgment entered April 1, 2021. Honchariw, Ttee v. County of Stanislaus, No. 21 15801, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered Feb. 22, 2022.