San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco
545 U.S. 323 · Decided June 20, 2005 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco was decided on June 20, 2005 unanimously (9–0). The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice John Paul Stevens 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
- 545 U.S. 323 · 125 S. Ct. 2491 · 162 L. Ed. 2d 315 · 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4848
- Docket number
- 04-340
- Decided
- June 20, 2005
- Argued
- March 28, 2005
- 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
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- John Paul Stevens
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Special concurrence | |
| Justice David H. Souter | Majority | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Majority | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Majority |
Full case caption
San Remo Hotel, L. P., et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 2004-063, docket 2004-063-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Susette Kelo v. City of New London
- Linda Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
- Allen D. Brown and Greg Hayes v. Legal Foundation of Washington
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
- Anthony Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Agins et Ux. v. City of Tiburon
- Gurley v. Rhoden
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- General Box Co. v. United States
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Linda Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
- Carman L. Deck v. Missouri
- Reginald A. Wilkinson v. Charles E. Austin
- Susette Kelo v. City of New London
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales
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