Steven A. Zamsky v. Stafford Hansell

56 F.3d 76 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Steven A. ZAMSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stafford HANSELL, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-35779. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 4, 1995. Decided May 24, 1995. Before: BROWNING, REAVLEY, * and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Because the Commissioners could have reasonably believed that their action did not constitute a taking, they are entitled to qualified immunity. 3 In Haas & Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 605 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1979), we found that a 95% reduction in the value of a landowner's property did not itself constitute a taking. See id. at 1120-21 ; see also Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 405 (1915) (finding no taking when value was reduced from $800,000 to $60,000). Although Haas does not compel the conclusion that the Commissioners' action here -- which reduced Zamsky's land value by about 94.6% -- was not a taking, it does…