Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 8 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

New York

Washington, D.C.

<div style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 1.0pt 4.0pt 4.0pt 4.0pt;">Key Notes:<ul><li> Failure to exhaust state court remedies is no longer a bar to filing a federal Fifth Amendment claim.</li><li>Section 1983 claims may be brought as soon as an unconstitutional taking occurs.</li></ul></div>Property owners may now file a federal claim for a constitutional violation of property rights as soon as a government takes private property for public use without paying for it. On June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States reconsidered the issue of whether property owners have standing to bring Fifth Amendment §1983 claims in federal court at the time of a taking or must first exhaust their remedies in state court. In Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al., the Court overturned a decades-old exhaustion-of-state-litigation requirement and held that when a government violates the Takings Clause, a property owner has immediate standing to bring a §1983 action in federal court, even if the issue of just compensation has not been addressed by the state courts.Under the old rule set forth in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which controlled the issue for approximately 35 years, when a government took a property owner’s land, the property owner could not pursue an action in federal court until its property had been taken and it had exhausted all of its remedies to pursue just compensation in state court proceedings. However, in practice, a state court’s resolution of a claim for just compensation under state law precludes any subsequent federal suits under the full faith and credit statute, as the Court recognized in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005). The Knick court concluded that the state-litigation requirement under Williamson and the subsequent preclusion trap recognized in San Remo Hotel imposed an impermissible burden on plaintiffs seeking to vindicate their rights under the Takings Clause and subjected them to hurdles not faced by plaintiffs seeking redress under other constitutional protections through §1983 litigation.What does this mean for property owners going forward? The Knick decision restores the Fifth Amendment property rights to the same level of protection as other constitutional claims, which can be enforced in federal court as soon as an unconstitutional violation occurs. Under the previous Williamson framework, property owners affected by takings without just compensation provided in advance were forced to exhaust state court remedies – often in the form of procedurally complex inverse condemnation actions, essentially forcing condemning authorities to initiate formal proceedings – and then live with the results of any just compensation resolution in state court proceedings. Now, under Knick, property owners facing condemning authorities that are reluctant to come forward with a just compensation package or to initiate proper condemnation proceedings have an immediate right to seek redress in federal court from the moment the taking occurs.<h5>FOR MORE INFORMATION</h5>For more information, please contact:Marilyn K. Eble 216.566.5784 <a href="mailto:Marilyn.Eble@ThompsonHine.com">Marilyn.Eble@ThompsonHine.com</a>Thomas M. Ritzert 216.566.5782 <a href="mailto:Thomas.Ritzert@ThompsonHine.com">Thomas.Ritzert@ThompsonHine.com</a>William W. Jacobs 216.566.5533 <a href="mailto:Bill.Jacobs@ThompsonHine.com">Bill.Jacobs@ThompsonHine.com</a>Martine C. Wilson 216.566.5934 <a href="mailto:Martine.Wilson@ThompsonHine.com">Martine.Wilson@ThompsonHine.com</a>This advisory bulletin may be reproduced, in whole or in part, with the prior permission of Thompson Hine LLP and acknowledgment of its source and copyright. This publication is intended to inform clients about legal matters of current interest. It is not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained in it without professional counsel.This document may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. © 2019 THOMPSON HINE LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

core/freeform

Partner

Thomas M. Ritzert

Securities & Shareholder Litigation

Business Litigation

Real Estate

Supreme Court Allows Immediate Filing of §1983 Claims for Takings Clause Violations