or that a decision will be made within a year. Tahoe, 122 S.Ct. at 1487 n. 31 (internal citation omitted). Boise argues that, due to the Court’s explicit analogy between permitting delays and moratoria, Tahoe mandates that their regulatory takings claims llowed not only by our court, but also by our sister circuits and the district courts. E.g., Adams v. United States, 255 F.3d 787, 794-95 (9th Cir.2001) (following Riverside Bayview to reject argument that mere imposition of a permitting'requirement, absent application for and denial of a permit, constitutes a taking); Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51, 56 (1st Cir.1991) (same); Rybachek v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 904 F.2d 1276, 1300 (9th Cir.1990) (same); United States v. Vogler, 859 F.2d 638, 642 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Moseley, 761 F.Supp. 90, 93
holding that a claim for indemnification was not ripe where it arose under common law and distinguishing this holding from ac  s in which the claim arose under contract and was thus ripe holding takings claim not ripe under riverside bayview because landowner never applied for a permit holding that no takings claim can arise unless a permit is denied 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 takings claim does not ripen until a permit application is denied