## Facts

- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E) bought a large tract of land in San Diego as a potential nuclear power plant site; it was largely zoned industrial or agricultural at purchase.
- The City later rezoned portions of the property, reducing industrial-use acreage, and adopted an open-space plan including the land and proposing City acquisition as parkland.
- A municipal bond measure to fund acquisition failed, and the City did not buy the land; SDG&E retained ownership subject to the new restrictions.
- SDG&E alleged the rezoning and open-space designation effectively deprived it of beneficial use, constituting a taking without just compensation.
- SDG&E sued for damages (inverse condemnation) and for mandamus/declaratory relief to invalidate the regulatory actions.
- The trial court awarded inverse-condemnation damages and dismissed the mandamus claim; the court of appeal initially affirmed.
- While the case was pending, state precedent held that a landowner deprived of beneficial use by zoning is not entitled to inverse-condemnation damages; the remedy is invalidation via mandamus/declaratory relief.
- After remand, the court of appeal reversed the damages award, indicated mandamus/declaratory relief could be pursued, and noted factual disputes remained as to whether a taking occurred.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to review a state-court decision that rejected inverse-condemnation damages but contemplated further proceedings on other remedies and on whether a taking occurred.

## Decision

- The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there was no “final judgment or decree” under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
- The state appellate decision was not final because it did not decide whether a taking occurred and left open further trial-court proceedings and potential equitable relief.
- The Court did not reach the merits of whether the City’s actions constituted a taking requiring compensation.

## Legal Principles

- Supreme Court review of state-court decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 requires a final judgment; the requirement is jurisdictional.
- A state judgment is not final for § 1257 purposes when further proceedings remain to resolve factual disputes central to the federal claim or to determine available relief.
- When state courts have not finally determined whether a federal constitutional violation occurred, Supreme Court merits review is premature.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed SDG&E’s appeal because the state-court judgment was not final under § 1257, leaving unresolved in state court both whether the regulations effected a taking and what relief, if any, would ultimately be granted.


San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621 (1981)