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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2255746/small-property-owners-v-city-co... ↗

Full Text

943 chars

at pp. 60-61.) The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the fee was akin to a permanent physical occupation of its property and therefore a per se taking: “It is artificial to view deductions of a percentage of a monetary award as physical appropriations of property. Unlike real or personal property, money is fungible. No special constitutional importance attaches to the fact that the Government deducted its charge directly from the award rather than requiring [plaintiff] to pay it separately. If the deduction in this case were a physical occupation requiring just compensation, so would be any fee for services, including a filing fee that must be paid in advance. Such a rule would be an extravagant extension of [the physical takings doctrine established in] Loretto [v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., supra, 458 U.S. 419 [73 L.Ed.2d 868, 102 S.Ct. 3164]].” {Sperry, supra, at p. 62, fn. 9.) Ehrlich v. City of Culver City

Other Sections in This Document (187)

Full Text