Property
123 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 1999)
Study notes for McNulty v. City of Seattle: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The failure of a city to maintain its storm drainage system does not constitute a taking without just compensation when such maintenance is considered a discretionary policy decision.
In McNulty v. City of Seattle, the Ninth Circuit primarily tackled the interplay between municipal liability for property damage and governmental immunity. The case emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between operational and discretionary functions of government entities. Here, the court found that the maintenance of storm drainage systems constituted discretionary policy-making, which is often insulated from liability. Professors often highlight this case to illustrate how courts balance the need for public infrastructure with the rights of property owners against government actions.
Moreover, the ruling serves as a reminder of the limitations of the takings clause under the Fifth Amendment when applied to government entities, particularly concerning their maintenance of public facilities. While property owners may suffer damages from governmental neglect, the essential character of discretionary function immunity underlines the challenging landscape for plaintiffs attempting to establish a legally compensable taking due to inadequate public maintenance.
MCNULTY: Municipal Care, No Urgency to Lift Taking Yoke.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City | In Penn Central, the court found that regulations prohibiting certain uses were a taking, unlike in McNulty, where discretionary government action led to damage. |
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council | Lucas involved a total loss of economic use due to a regulation, while McNulty was about damage due to inadequate maintenance of public service. |
| Kelo v. City of New London | Kelo involved the government's power to take property for public use, whereas McNulty dealt with liability issues related to inadequate municipal action. |
Allowing governments immunity in such cases encourages effective decision-making regarding resource allocation for public services.
Insulating cities from liability may disincentivize proper maintenance of public infrastructure, potentially leading to broader public harm.
Examiners may utilize this case to assess students' understanding of governmental immunity, particularly in the context of property law. Expect questions regarding the balancing act between governmental discretion and property rights.