Robert E. Bennett, et ux. v. City of Kingman, Arizona

Did the Arizona District Court and the Ninth Cir­ cuit Court Err when they Cited Penn Central v. New York City and failed to address Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, and Reahard v. Lee County on what constitutes reasonable, and what constitutes an investment backed expecta­ tion as per Reahard v. Lee County and its subse­ quent effect on the plaintiff. Penn Central v. New York City, 77-444 438 U.S. 104 1978 Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886 2900 (1992) Reahard v. Lee County, 968 F2d 1131 1136 (11th cir 1992) Cert, denied, 115 S. Ct. 1693 (1995)

Did the Arizona District Court and the Ninth Cir­ cuit Court err when they refused to address the Arizona Property Rights Protection Act, dimin­ ished value, agreements that “Run With The Land” as it relates to the 5th and 14th Amend­ ments to the U.S. Constitution and to plaintiffs 1983 claim. Az Prop 207, 1/21/2006 (Az sec 12-1131 thru Az. Sec 12-1138)

Did the Arizona District Court and the Ninth Cir­ cuit Court Err when they refused to address the Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure on vested rights as it relates to the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and to plaintiffs 1983 claim. Az. 557 P2d 532 (Az Ct. App. 1976) 11 u' U