actions with regard to the sewer category upgrade that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to issue a category three permit. The evidence, if believed by the trier of fact, may well support a finding that the County’s sole purpose in denying appellant, for a period of three years or more through its denial of a sewer upgrade permit, any opportunity to commence construction permitted by the existing commercial zoning was to consummate a downzoning that would effectively prohibit the use planned by appellant. This appears especially evident, and may be made virtually undebatable, by the appellee’s contemptuous actions in neither appealing nor obeying the trial court’s order to issue the sewer permit. The record clearly supports S.Ct. 1563, 1568, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256,
holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law holding that plaintiff was entitled to compensation for governments taking of option to renew a lease holding that where necessary to enforce the california constitutions requirement of just compensation for a taking courts can disregard statutory eminent domain requirements holding that californias mandatory iota program does not involve a taking of property without just compensation as prohibited by the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding that the confiscation of boats encumbered by material mens liens was a taking requiring just compensation