Wilkins v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellants do not contend that they sought compensation in state court or that Ohio does not provide an adequate remedy. See Williamson Cnty., 473 U.S. at 194 , 105 S.Ct. 3108 (explaining “all that is required is that a reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation exists at the time of the taking” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Ordinarily this would end our inquiry. However, Williamson County ripeness is a prudential doctrine. See Suitum v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725, 733-34 , 117 S.Ct. 1659 , 137 L.Ed.2d 980 (1997). The requirement to seek compensation prior to bringing suit will often serve important federalism interests. In regulatory takings cases involving sensitive issues of state policy, or cases that turn on whether the plaintiff has a property interest as defined by state law, ripeness concerns will prevent a federal court from reaching the merits prematurely. But where it is clear that there has been no “taking,” an issue of federal constitutional law, no jurisprudential purpose is served by delaying consideration of the issue. If anything, dismissing the case on ripeness grounds does a disservice to the federalism principles embodied in this doctrine as it would require the state courts to adjudicate a claim, already before the federal court, that clearly has no merit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose, LLC v. City of Cookeville ex rel. City Council