of an England reservation in the Williamson County context has been called into question by San Remo Hotel....”). Under Williamson County, a claim that the application of a government regulation effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until (1) “the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue,” and (2) the property owner has “unsuccessfully attempted to obtain just compensation through the procedures provided by the State for obt ry, 442 F.3d 159, 164-66 (3d Cir.2006) (discussing Williamson’s “finality rule”). Furthermore, the state court did not adjudicate Carroll’s claim on the merits. See Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp., 519 F.3d 564, 570-71 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Under these circumstances, we conclude that
holding that a state procedural default will not bar consideration of a federal claim on habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar holding that the federal habeas corpus court could reach the merits of a due process claim even though there was no contemporaneous objection in state court trial where the state habeas corpus court reached the merits rather than rely on the procedural default defense holding takings claim not ripe under riverside bayview because landowner never applied for a permit holding that a plaintiffs takings claim was not ripe for review where the state court never explicitly reached the merits of their claim and no procedural bar existed to prevent review holding that if the state court addresses both the procedural default and the merits of a federal claim in the alternative a federal court should apply the state procedural bar and decline to reach the merits of the claim