First English Evangelical Lutheran Church Of Glendale v. County Of Los Angeles

482 U.S. 304 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

First Evangelical (P) purchased a 21-acre parcel of land. The church operated an onsite campground as a retreat center and a recreational center for handicapped children. In July 1977, a forest fire denuded hills upstream destroying the watershed and creating a serious flood hazard. Flooding occurred in 1978 and destroyed the campsite and its buildings. In response to the flooding and the potential for more, the County of Los Angeles (D) adopted an ordinance preventing the construction of buildings within a certain area. The ordinance was to take effect immediately as D found that it was required for the immediate preservation of the public health and safety. P was located in the affected area. P sued for damages, claiming that the ordinance constituted a taking requiring just compensation. P also claimed that D was liable for the dangerous conditions on their upstream properties that contributed to the flooding of P’s campsite. P claimed that the ordinance denied them all use of their campsite and they sought to recover in inverse condemnation and in tort against D for engaging in cloud seeding during the storm that flooded D’s property. D moved to strike the allegation that P was denied all use of its land. D relied on the Agins case; compensation is not required until the challenged regulation or ordinance has been held excessive in an action for declaratory relief, or a writ of mandamus and the government has nevertheless decided to continue its regulation in effect. The trial court granted the motion to strike the allegation that P had been denied all use of its land. The trial court held that the only way to challenge an ordinance for depriving a person of the total use of his lands was by declaratory relief or mandamus. P alleged a regulatory taking and sought only damages, but the trial court dismissed the action. The court of appeals affirmed. It found that it had to follow Agins because the U.S. Supreme Court had not yet ruled on the question of whether a state may constitutionally limit the remedy for a taking to nonmonetary relief. The California Supreme Court denied review, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted a hearing.