Richard Pennell and Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association v. City of San Jose and City Council of San Jose
485 U.S. 1 · Decided February 24, 1988 · Supreme Court of the United States
At a glance
Richard Pennell and Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association v. City of San Jose and City Council of San Jose was decided on February 24, 1988 by a vote of 6–2. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 485 U.S. 1 · 108 S. Ct. 849 · 99 L. Ed. 2d 1 · 1988 U.S. LEXIS 945
- Docket number
- 86-753
- Decided
- February 24, 1988
- Argued
- November 10, 1987
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–2
- Majority opinion
- William H. Rehnquist
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Dissent | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
Did not participate: Anthony M. Kennedy.
Full case caption
Richard Pennell and Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association v. City of San Jose and City Council of San Jose
SCDB identifiers: case 1987-033, docket 1987-033-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Nollan et Ux. v. California Coastal Commission
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los AngelesLaw held unconstitutional
- Hodel v. IrvingLaw held unconstitutional
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch
- United States v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. Debenedictis
Cases on the same legal provision: Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Otis R. Bowen v. Kenneth Kizer
- New York State Club Association, Inc. v. City of New York
- Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc.
- Burke v. Barnes
- American Foreign Service Association v. Garfinkel
- Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Association, Inc.
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd.
- R. 'roy' Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.
- Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Joanne PopeLaw held unconstitutional
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Mallen
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk
- Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error