Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)

Citation
Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Parent Document
Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2006-08-09

Other Sections in This Document (187)

Full Text

365 chars
has no precedential effect . . . because no single rationale was agreed upon by the Court”].) On the other hand, another set of five justices agreed that the takings claim lacked merit because the takings clause did not apply, a view subsequently perceived by some courts as binding precedent. (Commonwealth Edison, supra, 271 F.3d at p. 1339; see also Kitt, supra,