![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
In MacDonald, Sommer, and Frates v. Yolo County, 54 U.S.L.W. 4782, 106 S. Ct. 2561 (1986), 38 ZD 259, a divided Supreme Court once again chose the ripeness “defense” to avoid the remedy question in an action for a regulatory taking under the federal Constitution. This commentator does not disagree with the result, although he shares some of the other commentators' frustrations with the Court's hesitancy to decide the remedy issue. The Court's persistence in accepting cases for review indicates the issue will eventually be resolved. In the meantime, the ripeness doctrine is being fleshed out by the highest Court in the land. This will have a salutary effect on future inverse-condemnation litigation.