R&j Holding Co v. The Redevelopment Authority Of, 670 F.3d 420

Condemnation of Plaintiffs’ Conshohocken property was pursued by the Montgomery County Redevelopment Authority at Pulver’s direction.
Title to the property passed to the Authority via a Declaration of Taking in 1996, triggering a challenge to the taking’s legality.
Commonwealth Court held the delegation of eminent domain power to Pulver was unlawful, invalidating the taking.
Plaintiffs obtained fees and costs in state court under Pennsylvania Eminent Domain Code §§ 1-406, 1-408 after prevailing there.
Plaintiffs filed a federal takings claim under the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments in 2002; later, they pursued inverse condemnation in state court, asserting Pennsylvania relief did not provide just compensation.
District Court dismissed on ripeness/claim-preclusion grounds, and the case was appealed to the Third Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claim preclusion bars the federal takings claim	Plaintiffs reserved federal claims and split actions, not objectionable	Defendants relied on claim preclusion due to splitting asserted by plaintiffs	No; Pennsylvania Restatement-based split-claim rule permitted; res judicata does not bar
Whether the England reservation validly preserved federal claims for later federal adjudication	Plaintiffs reserved federal claims in state court proceedings	Defendants argue reservation ineffective under San Remo/England framework	Remand not required; implied consent under PA law allowed reservation to proceed in federal court
Whether the takings claim was ripe or time-barred	Just compensation denied in state proceedings; federal claim timely	Ripeness/limitations bar applying Williamson County and related rules	Ripeness satisfied; action timely under Whittle and related authorities
Whether there was a per se taking entitling just compensation	Transfer of title via Declaration of Taking constitutes a taking	Regulatory takings or non-per se takings should apply; debated	Per se taking; title transfer constitutes taking and requires just compensation
Whether the state-law res judicata/claim-preclusion defenses extend to the federal claims	State court determination does not foreclose federal rights	State court rulings and England reservation implicate preclusion	Issue preclusion and related defenses do not bar the federal takings claim; remand warranted

Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (ripeness for takings claims; just compensation procedures)
San Remo Hotel v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 545 U.S. 323 (U.S. 2005) (full faith and credit; England reservation discussed)
England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1964) (reservation of federal claims in state proceedings)
Bradley v. Pittsburgh Board of Education, 913 F.2d 1064 (3d Cir. 1990) (Restatement-based claim splitting permissible with acquiescence)
Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1995) (state-law claim preclusion framework; four elements)
R. J. Holding Co. v. Redevelopment Auth. of the Cnty. of Montgomery, 885 A.2d 643 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2005) (Pennsylvania Eminent Domain Code; damages under §§1-406, 1-408; res judicata concerns)
United Artists’ Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Phila., 535 Pa. 370 (Pa. 1993) (state and federal takings considerations; coextensive constitutional interpretations)
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (U.S. 2002) (per se takings framework; distinguishing physical vs regulatory takings)
Yee v. Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1992) (physical occupation or transfer of title triggers takings inquiry)
United States v. Bodcaw, 440 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1979) (compensation for condemnation costs; distinction between statutory remedies and constitutional rights)