Herrington v. County of Sonoma

857 F.2d 567 John S. HERRINGTON, David S. Herrington and Quail Hill Ranch, a partnership, Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Nos. 86-2620, 86-2728. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 13, 1988. ORDER AMENDING AMENDED OPINION, DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REJECTING SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Before CHOY, SNEED and TANG, Circuit Judges. ORDER 1 A majority of the panel which heard this case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the full panel has rejected the suggestion for rehearing en banc. However, the Opinion filed on December 24, 1987 as amended on February 10, 1988, is further amended as follows: 2 At 834 F.2d 1488 , 1494-1498, Section "A. Ripeness" is replaced by the following: A. Ripeness 3 The County contends that the Herringtons' claims are not ripe for adjudication. We note that the trial judge submitted the ripeness issue to the jury and that the jury implicitly found that the Herringtons' claims were ripe. However, the district court erred in submitting this issue to the jury; ripeness is a question of law which must be determined by the court. See Kinzli v. City of Santa…