Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantarbitrationattorneyappealsummary judgmentregulationobjectionarbitrator
defendantarbitrationsummary judgmentarbitrator

Related Cases

Houle v. Low, 407 Mass. 810, 556 N.E.2d 51
View Case »
Williams v. Utica College of Syracuse University, 453 F.3d 112, 210 Ed. Law Rep. 895
View Case »
Rosenthal v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States, 273 N.Y. 522, 6 N.E.2d 609
View Case »
Case of Drucker, 133 N.H. 326, 577 A.2d 1198
View Case »
Center Partners, Ltd. v. Growth Head GP, LLC, 2012 IL 113107, 981 N.E.2d 345, 367 Ill.Dec. 20
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Scheehle v. Justices of Supreme Court of Ariz., 508 F.3d 887, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13,072, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 17,038

Facts

Mark V. Scheehle, a member of the Arizona Bar since 1981, was appointed as an arbitrator in several personal injury cases. He objected to the Appointment System, which required attorneys to serve as arbitrators for up to two days a year with minimal compensation. After his objections were rejected by the Presiding Arbitration Judge, Scheehle filed a complaint in federal court alleging that the Appointment System violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, leading to Scheehle's appeal.

Scheehle has been a member of the Arizona Bar since 1981, and a certified tax specialist since 1988. In September 1996, Scheehle was appointed as the arbitrator in a motor vehicle personal injury action. He served as an arbitrator and submitted a report to the Maricopa Superior Court in December 1997. In July 1997, Scheehle was appointed as the arbitrator in a second motor vehicle personal injury suit and accepted the appointment.

Issue

Did the Arbitrator Appointment System constitute a taking of Scheehle's property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment?

Did the Arbitrator Appointment System constitute a taking of Scheehle's property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment?

Rule

The regulatory takings test established in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York is applied to determine if government regulation constitutes a taking requiring compensation.

We hold that Scheehle's constitutional challenge to the Appointment System is properly considered under the regulatory takings test set forth in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978), and applying that test, we conclude that the impact of the Appointment System on Scheehle does not amount to a taking for which Scheehle is entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

Analysis

The court applied the regulatory takings test to Scheehle's claims, concluding that the economic impact of the Appointment System on him was negligible, as it required only two days of service per year. The court found that this obligation did not interfere with Scheehle's existing legal work or distinct investment-backed expectations. Furthermore, the court noted that by practicing law in Arizona, Scheehle had voluntarily accepted the obligation to serve the court when requested.

When the regulatory takings test factors are applied to Scheehle's claim, the compelled conclusion is that there has been no constitutional taking. First, the economic impact of the imposition on Scheehle is negligible. He is required to devote two days out of the 365 days in a year to arbitration. Moreover, there is no showing or suggestion that this obligation interfered with any existing legal work.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding that the Appointment System's requirements did not amount to a taking of property for which Scheehle was entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

The district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants is AFFIRMED.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in the case because the court found that the Appointment System did not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and the minimal service required did not interfere with Scheehle's legal practice.

The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding that the Appointment System's requirements did not amount to a taking of property for which Scheehle was entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

You must be