No. 24-987

Kingston Kohr, LLC v. City of Irvine, California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2025-03-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: demolition-permit due-process local-government ministerial-duty property-rights takings-clause
Key Terms:
DueProcess Takings Privacy
Latest Conference: 2025-05-02
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether property owners have due process rights to conduct self-demolition or if local government has sole authority, and whether leveraging a demolition permit to exact property owner's consent violates Takings and Due Process Clauses

Question Presented (from Petition)

In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825 , 836, this Court held that local government denial of a demolition permit in order to exact a concession was allowed under the Takings Clause only if there was an “essential nexus” between the purpose of the permit and the purpose of the condition. The question s presented are: 1. Whether owners of property in abatement have due process or property rights to conduct self demolition or whether this authority lies solely with local government. 2. Whether it is a violation of the Takings and Due Process Clause s for local government to leverage its performance of a ministerial duty —namely, to grant or deny a demolition permit —to exact the property owner’s consent for entry on the property to conduct its own demolition .

Docket Entries

2025-05-05
Petition DENIED.
2025-04-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/2/2025.
2025-04-09
Waiver of right of respondent City of Irvine to respond filed.
2025-03-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 14, 2025)
2025-01-30
Application (24A746) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 10, 2025.
2025-01-17
Application (24A746) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 28, 2025 to March 10, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

City of Irvine
Noam DuzmanRutan & Tucker, LLP, Respondent
Noam DuzmanRutan & Tucker, LLP, Respondent
Kingston Kohr, LLC
David ZarmiZarmi Law, Petitioner
David ZarmiZarmi Law, Petitioner