No. 21-1478
Nicholas Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, California, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: constitutional-interpretation due-process finality-requirement finality-ripeness knick pakdel ripeness-doctrine supreme-court-precedent takings takings-claim williamson-county
Latest Conference:
2022-09-28
Question Presented (from Petition)
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).
Question Presented (AI Summary)
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)
Docket Entries
2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-06-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-06-21
Waiver of right of respondent County of Stanislaus, et al. to respond filed.
2022-05-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 23, 2022)
Attorneys
County of Stanislaus, et al.
Matthew D. Zinn — Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, Respondent
Nicholas Honchariw, Trustee
Nicholas James Honchariw — Attorney-at-Law, Petitioner