Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Constitutional : Equal Protection – Takings

Stephanie Maniscalco//September 8, 2016

Constitutional : Equal Protection – Takings

Stephanie Maniscalco//September 8, 2016

Where two insurers sued a city after a water-main break when the city denied claims submitted by the insurers, summary judgment against the insurers on their equal protection claim is affirmed because the insurers were not similarly situated to uninsured property owners for purposes of an equal protection claim, and the insurers’ takings claims were not ripe for review.



Concurring opinion by Murphy, J.: “I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that appellants’ state takings claim was not ‘ripe for review’ by the federal district court due to their failure to first pursue it through a mandamus action in state court. I do not see why Minnesota’s mandamus requirement for inverse condemnation claims would preclude such claims from proceeding in the federal courts when there is a basis for federal jurisdiction….

“I nonetheless concur in the judgment because appellants have not advanced any arguments showing federal jurisdiction over their inverse condemnation claim. Contrary to appellants’ assertions, the district court need not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over their state takings claim since the related federal claims were properly dismissed.”

Judgment is affirmed.

American Family Insurance v. City of Minneapolis (MLW No. 69675/Case No. 15-3216 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Nelson, J. (Steven L. Theesfeld, Minneapolis, argued for appellant; Lawrence M. Baill appeared on the brief) (Brian Scott Carter, Minneapolis, argued for appellee;  Gregory P. Sautter appeared on the brief).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)

Latest Opinion Digests

See all digests

Top stories

See more news