Property Rights SCOTUS Decision

To further ruminate on this particular case in PA, current ALTA and property surveys require disclosure of graves on private land. Local cemetery ordinances have certain require ments either for access and/or preservation. One sees so the time how community preservation rights have an impact on personal property rights or for that matter any property owners right including public ownership.

A discussion can flow into different directions on this decision. The defense of an individual's property could be not as important than the jurisdiction issue.

A 5th amendment case, the court overturns precedent, more rights to property owners. Property owners were caught in a Catch 22 situation were Federal Courts would reject these cases before hearing them.?ÿ

Understood. District courts wanted a decision by state court before accepting them.  Raises  two questions for me.  1) Do district courts  have the knowledge of local community property restrictions to render an opinion as stated in the dissent opinion ? 2) The exercising of defending your rights as a property owner has just taken a quantum jump in procedure and subsequently expense. 

That's one way to look at it, but from what I read about it, because of SC rulings there became no way for these cases to access Federal Courts since they would defer to the state court.

In my humble opinion zoning and property restrictions should never override constitutional rights.

My reading of this is that the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania determined that an 1985 SCOTUS case (Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172) " limited access to federal court for plaintiffs alleging uncompensated takings of private property under the Fifth Amendment" (from Wikipedia article linked in the OP case).?ÿ All avenues within the state courts must be exhausted before review by the federal courts.?ÿ The Third Circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court's ruling.?ÿ However, other circuits had ruled otherwise, which lead to SCOTUS reviewing the case and overturning the above requirement in Williamson.

So, I'm not sure about your second question that litigation costs would go through the roof when a litigant decides to have a federal court decide whether the taking was proper under the Fifth Amendment.?ÿ I suppose that trotting the case over to the federal courts and them deciding that nothing was improper and remanding the case back to state court would be a situation where the litigation costs would take a "quantum leap."?ÿ However, that wouldn't be any different (other than the order) to exhausting one's case in the state courts and then finally being allowed to be heard in federal court prior to this SCOTUS decision.

As to your first question, there is a way for a litigant to have their case heard in federal court instead of state court and that is when the litigant invokes diversity.?ÿ For example, if Knick was a resident of New York, she could have had the case moved from the Pennsylvania state courts to federal court because of diversity.?ÿ That legal principle states that a state court may be biased towards an out-of-state litigant.?ÿ In those cases, the federal courts will act as a surrogate for the state courts and apply the substantive law of the state in making their ruling(s).?ÿ This legal doctrine is called the Erie Doctrine, which is a topic that legal scholars have written an over abundance of law review articles on.?ÿ The Erie Doctrine is based on the SCOTUS case, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).?ÿ While your question is a good one, the federal courts have not been dissuaded from applying a state's substantive law in diversity cases, so hearing this type of case is not something brand new.

ETA:?ÿ On second thought since the question before the federal courts would be whether the taking was constitutional under the Fifth Amendment, the courts would be answering a federal question not a state question.?ÿ Why would they care what the local community property restrictions are other than to determine if they are constitutional?

This case is of interest, but it hasn't strengthened any property rights. It may lead to that, but the federal courts haven't discussed the merits of the case yet.?ÿ

?ÿ

Zoning restrictions, and this ordinance, which requires public access to private property when no additional burden is being placed on public facilities,  are completely different issues.  

Exactly right, aliquot.  SCOTUS accepted Knick's writ of certiorari and upon review, struck the section in Williamson that required Knick to exhaust her appeals in the Pennsylvania state courts.  They then remanded the case back to U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  The district judge may decide that there is another reason for the federal courts to not hear the case or the case will be heard on the merits and a ruling issued.

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission V. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City is a case dealing with zoning restrictions, and is the case cited as precedent, so I'm standing by my original comment. This case overturns at least part of Williamson County.

For those that enjoy the weeds, here is the SCOTUS opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, concurring opinion by Justice Thomas, and dissent by Justice Kagen.

KNICK v. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

I was incorrect in my prior statement that following the Williamson precedent, a litigant would finally have access to the federal courts after fully exhausting their remedies in the state courts.?ÿ Quoting from Sections 1 and 1(a) of the Syllabus of the decision (underlined text emphasis is mine):

Held:
1. A government violates the Takings Clause when it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may bring a Fifth Amendment claim under ??1983 at that time. Pp. 5ƒ??20.

(a) In Williamson County, the Court held that, as relevant here, a property developerƒ??s federal takings claim was ƒ??prematureƒ? because he had not sought compensation through the Stateƒ??s inverse condemnation procedure. 473 U. S., at 197. The unanticipated consequence of this ruling was that a takings plaintiff who complied with Williamson County and brought a compensation claim in state court wouldƒ?? on proceeding to federal court after the unsuccessful state claimƒ??have the federal claim barred because the full faith and credit statute required the federal court to give preclusive effect to the state courtƒ??s decision. San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U. S. 323, 347. Pp. 5ƒ??6.

@MightMoe This SCOTUS decision has nothing to do with zoning restrictions.?ÿ The portion of the Williamson decision that was overturned was in my terms only procedural.?ÿ There is nothing in Knick about zoning restrictions, or easements.?ÿ The U.S. District Court and Third Circuit relied on Williamson to dismiss the case because it was not ripe.?ÿ SCOTUS overruled that portion of Williamson because it was bad law.?ÿ From Section 2 of the Syllabus:

2. The state-litigation requirement of Williamson County is overruled. Several factors counsel in favor of this decision. Williamson County was poorly reasoned and conflicts with much of the Courtƒ??s takings jurisprudence. Because of its shaky foundations, the rationale for the state-litigation requirement has been repeatedly recast by this Court and the defenders of Williamson County. The state-litigation requirement also proved to be unworkable in practice because the San Remo preclusion trap prevented takings plaintiffs from ever bringing their claims in federal court, contrary to the expectations of the Williamson County Court. Finally, there are no reliance interests on the state-litigation requirement. As long as post-taking compensation remedies are available, governments need not fear that federal courts will invalidate their regulations as unconstitutional. Pp. 20ƒ??23.

Gene, I'm well aware that SCOTUS didn't resolve the underlying issues for Williamson or Knick, but the underlying issue in Williamson was Zoning and in Knick it's forced easements across private land. The SCOTUS overturned Williamson which had effectively caused these 5th amendment cases to be unable to access Federal Courts.?ÿ

As is often the case it could be many years before the reasons behind these lawsuits cases were brought are finally decided, if they ever are.?ÿ

What upsets some in the legal community is that SCOTUS overturned precedent with Knick, that seems to be a big deal. This gives landowners more power against ruling bodies, doesn't sound like much to me since they didn't address the idea that a counsel or commission can pass a law taking land (the Knick argument here not mine).?ÿ

It seems more like baby steps to me, but it does put ruling bodies on notice that there are more options for a landowner.?ÿ

I just don't see the original case as a taking.

The family buries two family members on the property. By doing so they create the need to give access to the burial site, they have granted an easement whether they intended to or not.

Many years later, the supreme court is arguing over which court should be coming to that conclusion. "Ain't nobody TAKIN nuthin!"

my opinion only

James

And that could very well be what the federal courts rule in the end. 

Agree. It seems that the original problem still remains. (No pun intended.) The ordinance, while apparently poorly written and possibly burdensome, doesn't change the fact that there might be a valid claim by someone whose ancestors are buried on the property. Which is not a taking by a public entity. And will still stand even if the ordinance is struck down.

I don't see how this even got to the SCOTUS when simple mediation and investigation could have sorted this out.

If only there were some sort of process that Knick and the title company could have gone through before the purchase to discover and rectify this issue. Like someone with training and experience, licensed by the state, locating improvements on the land that indicate a possible claim by others...

Apparently land surveyors cannot declare the existence of a not of Record cemetary, at least in Georgia:

"The extensive permit requirements set out in the law include hiring an archaeologist to delineate where all graves are, a land surveyor to map the cemetery, [  .  .  .  ]"

So it seems the focus?ÿ of discussion has been the jurisdiction of filing and the emasculation of the state court system.

I don't want to display any political cynicism?ÿ but the dark alley here is that it appears to be ideological decision by the 5-4 vote. So with the?ÿ recent aggressive appointments of conservative federal judges at all levels, circumventing state courts to pipeline cases to federal courts could be a?ÿ ?ÿpartisan strategy.?ÿ

Many years ago I worked at an Army Ammunition Plant located on over 13,000 acres. ?ÿThe acquisition during the build up to dubya dubya aye aye included a few one-room school houses and two cemeteries. ?ÿThe entire reservation was off limits due to many tons of ammunition and more tons of stuff that makes that ammunition go BBOOOOMM!! ?ÿPlus there was Classified, Secret and Top Secret functions and items spread around all those acres.

Access to the cemeteries was allowed, very carefully, one day per year. ?ÿEither the Saturday or Monday of Memorial Day weekend. ?ÿI don't recall which. ?ÿThere were a few burials, I was told, in the early years for those who had purchased lots prior to Federal ownership.

Was driving by one of the cemeteries one day with a consulting engineer from out of state. ?ÿHe asked why we had a cemetery on plant. ?ÿI explained that those were for "permanent" employees.

Posted by: holy cow

...Many years ago I worked at an Army Ammunition Plant located on over 13,000 acres...

Must have been the one near Parsons, KS.?ÿ We've got one near McAlester, OK that's over 40,000 acres.

I've surveyed various stuff there at the depot over the years.?ÿ It took 2 hours to get in and 2 hours to get out and we couldn't go anywhere without those two armed uniforms in a Humvee.?ÿ I'd prefer to never go back there. I applaud our military and think they are a very necessary part of our freedom.?ÿ But they don't need me around.?ÿ

My differences with the Army stem from the fact I don't particularly like green and I like to make my own rules..?ÿ 😉

I have noticed that the price of eggs range from 1.39 to 4.79 cents a dozen depending on size, free range, organic etc.

just FYI.