District court judgment granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is affirmed where: 1) the Minneapolis ordinance uncapping the number of taxi licenses did not amount to an unconstitutional taking of private property requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment, as the holders of the licenses did not have a protected property interest in the value of the licenses on the secondary or re-sale market; 2) the ordinance does not violate due process rights as the holders of the licenses did not have a protected property interest; and 3) plaintiffs do not have standing to raise an unconstitutional exaction claim as the complaint does not allege a relationship between its member-licensees and the licensed service companies affected by the new ordinance’s provisions on fuel efficiency and wheel-chair access, and thus, they cannot show an injury in fact.
Read Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, No. 08-1239
Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.Submitted: November 13, 2008Filed: July 14, 2009
JudgesBefore MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.Opinion by MELLOY, Circuit Judge.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
