that the Mannings have not received a final decision from the relevant state agencies, and in fact withdrew their permit applications prior to commencement of this suit. The Mannings’ argument, that the permitting process was unreasonably delayed, is not borne out by the record. Even if it were, it would not be a sufficient basis for a takings claim. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 334-335, 122 S.Ct. 1465, 152 L.Ed.2d 517 (2002) (rejecting “the extreme categorical rule” that normal delays in obtaining permits could constitute a taking because such a rule would “undoubtedly require changes in numerous practices that have long been considered permissible exercises of the police power”); see also id. at 337 nn. 31-32, 122 S.Ct. 1465 (<HOLDING>). I conclude the case is not ripe for decision.
recognizing that permitting delays are similar to temporary moratoria and further noting that even a total moratorium on new development for a limited time period is not a taking holding that in temporary guardianship proceeding for woman with mental retardation the allegedly incapacitated person must appear because that persons rights are being limited even if for a short period of time holding that claimant may simultaneously receive unemployment benefits and workers compensation for temporary partial disability where statute only precludes receipt of workers compensation for temporary total or permanent total disability if claimant is receiving unemployment benefits recognizing similar duties holding a sentence is not limited to period of incarceration