
    Rose Mary KNICK, Appellant v. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT ; Carl S. Ferraro, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Scott Township Code Enforcement Officer
    No. 16-3587
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    August 9, 2019
    Frank J. Bolock, Jr., 212 Front Street, Clarks Summit, PA 18411, J. David Breemer, Pacific Legal Foundation, 930 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, Counsel for Appellant
    Mark J. Kozlowski, William J. McPartland, Thomas A. Specht, Marshall Dennehey Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.O. Box 3118, Scranton, PA 18505, Counsel for Appellees
    Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, McKEE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
    JUDGMENT ORDER ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
   D. Brooks Smith, Chief Judge

By opinion and judgment entered July 6, 2017, this Court affirmed the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania's dismissal of appellant Rose Mary Knick's Fourth Amendment challenge for lack of standing and her Fifth Amendment takings claim without prejudice pending exhaustion of state-law compensation remedies under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City , 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985).

By opinion filed June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States overruled its prior holding in Williamson County that a property owner whose property has been taken by a local government has not suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights and cannot bring a federal takings claim in federal court until a state court has denied his claim for just compensation under state law. Thus, the Supreme Court vacated this Court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

In light of the action taken by the Supreme Court overruling Williams County , it is hereby ORDERED that this Court's prior opinion is vacated with respect to the Fifth Amendment takings claim. This Court's determination that Knick lacked standing to advance a Fourth Amendment claim was not considered by the Supreme Court of the United States on certiorari review. As such, this Court's opinion stands with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim.

Accordingly, it is now hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court entered September 8, 2016, be and the same is hereby AFFIRMED as to the dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claims, VACATED as to the dismissal of the Fifth Amendment claims, and REMANDED for further proceedings. The parties shall bear their own costs.  