author: Justice Rehnquist Justice White, Justice Brennan, Justice Stevens,

text:
    CELOTEX CORP. v. CATRETT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CATRETT
    No. 85-198.
    Argued April 1, 1986
    Decided June 25, 1986

      Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White, Marshall, Powell, and O’ConnoR, JJ., joined. White, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 328. Brennan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Burger, C. J., and Blackmun, J., joined, post, p. 329. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 337.

      Leland S. Van Koten argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were H. Emslie Parks and Drake C. Zaharris.

      Paul March Smith argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Joseph N. Onek, Joel I. Klein, James F. Green, and Peter T. Enslein.

        Stephen M. Shapiro, Robert L. Stem, William H. Crabtree, Edward P. Good, and Paul M. Bator filed a brief for the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

   Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion of petitioner Celotex Corporation for summary judgment against respondent Catrett because the latter was unable to produce evidence in support of her allegation in her wrongful-death complaint that the decedent had been exposed to petitioner’s asbestos products. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, however, holding that petitioner’s failure to support its motion with evidence tending to negate such exposure precluded the entry of summary judgment in its favor. Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 244 U. S. App. D. C. 160, 756 F. 2d 181 (1985). This view conflicted with that of the Third Circuit in In re Japanese Electronic Products, 723 F. 2d 238 (1983), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574 (1986). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 474 U. S. 944 (1985), and now reverse the decision of the District of Columbia Circuit.

Respondent commenced this lawsuit in September 1980, alleging that the death in 1979 of her husband, Louis H. Catrett, resulted from his exposure to products containing asbestos manufactured or distributed by 15 named corporations. Respondent’s complaint sounded in negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. Two of the defendants filed motions challenging the District Court’s in perso-nam jurisdiction, and the remaining 13, including petitioner, filed motions for summary judgment. Petitioner’s motion, which was first filed in September 1981, argued that summary judgment was proper because respondent had “failed to produce evidence that any [Celotex] product . . . was the proximate cause of the injuries alleged within the jurisdictional limits of [the District] Court. ” In particular, petitioner noted that respondent had failed to identify, in answering interrogatories specifically requesting such information, any witnesses who could testify about the decedent’s exposure to petitioner’s asbestos products. In response to petitioner’s summary judgment motion, respondent then produced three documents which she claimed “demonstrate that there is a genuine material factual dispute” as to whether the decedent had ever been exposed to petitioner’s asbestos products. The three documents included a transcript of a deposition of the decedent, a letter from an official of one of the decedent’s former employers whom petitioner planned to call as a trial witness, and a letter from an insurance company to respondent’s attorney, all tending to establish that the decedent had been exposed to petitioner’s asbestos products in Chicago during 1970-1971. Petitioner, in turn, argued that the three documents were inadmissible hearsay and thus could not be considered in opposition to the summary judgment motion.

In July 1982, almost two years after the commencement of the lawsuit, the District Court granted all of the motions filed by the various defendants. The court explained that it was granting petitioner’s summary judgment motion because “there [was] no showing that the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant Celotex’s product in the District of Columbia or elsewhere within the statutory period.” App. 217. Respondent appealed only the grant of summary judgment in favor of petitioner, and a divided panel of the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. The majority of the Court of Appeals held that petitioner’s summary judgment motion was rendered “fatally defective” by the fact that petitioner “made no effort to adduce any evidence, in the form of affidavits or otherwise, to support its motion.” 244 U. S. App. D. C., at 163, 756 F. 2d, at 184 (emphasis in original). According to the majority, Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this Court’s decision in Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 159 (1970), establish that “the party opposing the motion for summary judgment bears the burden of responding only after the moving party has met its burden of coming forward with proof of the absence of any genuine issues of material fact.” 244 U. S. App. D. C., at 163, 756 F. 2d, at 184 (emphasis in original; footnote omitted). The majority therefore declined to consider petitioner’s argument that none of the evidence produced by respondent in opposition to the motion for summary judgment would have been admissible at trial. Ibid. The dissenting judge argued that “[t]he majority errs in supposing that a party seeking summary judgment must always make an affirmative eviden-tiary showing, even in cases where there is not a triable, factual dispute.” Id., at 167, 756 F. 2d, at 188 (Bork, J., dissenting). According to the dissenting judge, the majority’s decision “undermines the traditional authority of trial judges to grant summary judgment in meritless cases.” Id., at 166, 756 F. 2d, at 187.

We think that the position taken by the majority of the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with the standard for summary judgment set forth in Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of. proof. “[T]h[e] standard [for granting summary judgment] mirrors the standard for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) . . . .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., ante, at 250.

Of course, a party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. But unlike the Court of Appeals, we find no express or implied requirement in Rule 56 that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent’s claim. On the contrary, Rule 56(c), which refers to “the affidavits, if any” (emphasis added), suggests the absence of such a requirement. And if there were any doubt about the meaning of Rule 56(c) in this regard, such doubt is clearly removed by Rules 56(a) and (b), which provide that claimants and defendants, respectively, may move for summary judgment “with or without supporting affidavits” (emphasis added). The import of these subsections is that, regardless of whether the moving party accompanies its summary judgment motion with affidavits, the motion may, and should, be granted so long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for the entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied. One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses, and we think it should be interpreted in a way that allows it to accomplish this purpose.

Respondent argues, however, that Rule 56(e), by its terms, places on the nonmoving party the burden of coming forward with rebuttal affidavits, or other specified kinds of materials, only in response to a motion for summary judgment “made and supported as provided in this rule.” According to respondent’s argument, since petitioner did not “support” its motion with affidavits, summary judgment was improper in this case. But as we have already explained, a motion for summary judgment may be made pursuant to Rule 56 “with or without supporting affidavits.” In cases like the instant one, where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.” Such a motion, whether or not accompanied by affidavits, will be “made and supported as provided in this rule,” and Rule 56(e) therefore requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the “depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,” designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”

We do not mean that the nonmoving party must produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment. Obviously, Rule 56 does not require the nonmoving party to depose her own witnesses. Rule 56(e) permits a proper summary judgment motion to be opposed by any of the kinds of evidentiary materials listed in Rule 56(c), except the mere pleadings themselves, and it is from this list that one would normally expect the nonmoving party to make the showing to which we have referred.

The Court of Appeals in this case felt itself constrained, however, by language in our decision in Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144 (1970). There we held that summary judgment had been improperly entered in favor of the defendant restaurant in an action brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. In the course of its opinion, the Adickes Court said that “both the commentary on and the background of the 1963 amendment conclusively show that it was not intended to modify the burden of the moving party... to show initially the absence of a genuine issue concerning any material fact.” Id., at 159. We think that this statement is accurate in a literal sense, since we fully agree with the Adickes Court that the 1963 amendment to Rule 56(e) was not designed to modify the burden of making the showing generally required by Rule 56(c). It also appears to us that, on the basis of the showing before the Court in Adickes, the motion for summary judgment in that case should have been denied. But we do not think the Adickes language quoted above should be construed to mean that the burden is on the party moving for summary judgment to produce evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, even with respect to an issue on which the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof. Instead, as we have explained, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by “showing” — that is, pointing out to the district court — that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.

The last two sentences of Rule 56(e) were added, as this Court indicated in Adickes, to disapprove a line of cases allowing a party opposing summary judgment to resist a properly made motion by reference only to its pleadings. While the Adickes Court was undoubtedly correct in concluding that these two sentences were not intended to reduce the burden of the moving party, it is also obvious that they were not adopted to add to that burden. Yet that is exactly the result which the reasoning of the Court of Appeals would produce; in effect, an amendment to Rule 56(e) designed to facilitate the granting of motions for summary judgment would be interpreted to make it more difficult to grant such motions. Nothing in the two sentences themselves requires this result, for the reasons we have previously indicated, and we now put to rest any inference that they do so.

Our conclusion is bolstered by the fact that district courts are widely acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary judgments sua sponte, so long as the losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her evidence. See 244 U. S. App. D. C., at 167-168, 756 F. 2d, at 189 (Bork, J., dissenting); 10A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2720, pp. 28-29 (1983). It would surely defy common sense to hold that the District Court could have entered summary judgment sua sponte in favor of petitioner in the instant case, but that petitioner’s filing of a motion requesting such a disposition precluded the District Court from ordering it.

Respondent commenced this action in September 1980, and petitioner’s motion was filed in September 1981. The parties had conducted discovery, and no serious claim can be made that respondent was in any sense “railroaded” by a premature motion for summary judgment. Any potential problem with such premature motions can be adequately dealt with under Rule 56(f), which allows a summary judgment motion to be denied, or the hearing on the motion to be continued, if the nonmoving party has not had an opportunity to make full discovery.

In this Court, respondent’s brief and oral argument have been devoted as much to the proposition that an adequate showing of exposure to petitioner’s asbestos products was made as to the proposition that no such showing should have been required. But the Court of Appeals declined to address either the adequacy of the showing made by respondent in opposition to petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, or the question whether such a showing, if reduced to admissible evidence, would be sufficient to carry respondent’s burden of proof at trial. We think the Court of Appeals ■with its superior knowledge of local law is better suited than we are to make these determinations in the first instance.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have for almost 50 years authorized motions for summary judgment upon proper showings of the lack of a genuine, triable issue of material fact. Summary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 1; see Schwarzer, Summary Judgment Under the Federal Rules: Defining Genuine Issues of Material Fact, 99 F. R. D. 465, 467 (1984). Before the shift to “notice pleading” accomplished by the Federal Rules, motions to dismiss a complaint or to strike a defense were the principal tools by which factually insufficient claims or defenses could be isolated and prevented from going to trial with the attendant unwarranted consumption of public and private resources. But with the advent of “notice pleading,” the motion to dismiss seldom fulfills this function any more, and its place has been taken by the motion for summary judgment. Rule 56 must be construed with due regard not only for the rights of persons asserting claims and defenses that are adequately based in fact to have those claims and defenses tried to a jury, but also for the rights of persons opposing such claims and defenses to demonstrate in the manner provided by the Rule, prior to trial, that the claims and defenses have no factual basis.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice White,

concurring.

I agree that the Court of Appeals was wrong in holding that the moving defendant must always support his motion with evidence or affidavits showing the absence of a genuine dispute about a material fact. I also agree that the movant may rely on depositions, answers to interrogatories, and the like, to demonstrate that the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his case and hence that there can be no factual dispute. But the movant must discharge the burden the Rules place upon him: It is not enough to move for summary judgment without supporting the motion in any way or with a con-clusory assertion that the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his case.

A plaintiff need not initiate any discovery or reveal his witnesses or evidence unless required to do so under the discovery Rules or by court order. Of course, he must respond if required to do so; but he need not also depose his witnesses or obtain their affidavits to defeat a summary judgment motion asserting only that he has failed to produce any support for his case. It is the defendant’s task to negate, if he can, the claimed basis for the suit.

Petitioner Celotex does not dispute that if respondent has named a witness to support her claim, summary judgment should not be granted without Celotex somehow showing that the named witness’ possible testimony raises no genuine issue of material fact. Tr. of Oral Arg. 43, 45. It asserts, however, that respondent has failed on request to produce any basis for her case. Respondent, on the other hand, does not contend that she was not obligated to reveal her witnesses and evidence but insists that she has revealed enough to defeat the motion for summary judgment. Because the Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to address this aspect of the case, I agree that the case should be remanded for further proceedings.

Justice Brennan,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Blackmun join, dissenting.

This case requires the Court to determine whether Celotex satisfied its initial burden of production in moving for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff lacked evidence to establish an essential element of her case at trial. I do not disagree with the Court’s legal analysis. The Court clearly rejects the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the defendant must provide affirmative evidence disproving the plaintiff’s case. Beyond this, however, the Court has not clearly explained what is required of a moving party seeking summary judgment on the ground that the nonmoving party cannot prove its case. This lack of clarity is unfortunate: district courts must routinely decide summary judgment motions, and the Court’s opinion will very likely create confusion. For this reason, even if I agreed with the Court’s result, I would have written separately to explain more clearly the law in this area. However, because I believe that Celo-tex did not meet its burden of production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment.

I

Summary judgment is appropriate where the court is satisfied “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c). The burden of establishing the nonexistence of a “genuine issue” is on the party moving for summary judgment. 10A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §2727, p. 121 (2d ed. 1983) (hereinafter Wright) (citing cases); 6 J. Moore, W. Taggart & J. Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[3] (2d ed. 1985) (hereinafter Moore) (citing cases). See also, ante, at 323; ante, at 328 (White, J., concurring). This burden has two distinct components: an initial burden of production, which shifts to the nonmoving party if satisfied by the moving party; and an ultimate burden of persuasion, which always remains on the moving party. See 10A Wright § 2727. The court need not decide whether the moving party has satisfied its ultimate burden of persuasion unless and until the court finds that the moving party has discharged its initial burden of production. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 157-161 (1970); 1963 Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e), 28 U. S. C. App., p. 626.

The burden of production imposed by Rule 56 requires the moving party to make a prima facie showing that it is entitled to summary judgment. 10A Wright § 2727. The manner in which this showing can be made depends upon which party will bear the burden of persuasion on the challenged claim at trial. If the moving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, that party must support its motion with credible evidence-using any of the materials specified in Rule 56(c)— that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial. Ibid. Such an affirmative showing shifts the burden of production to the party opposing the motion and requires that party either to produce evidentiary materials that demonstrate the existence of a “genuine issue” for trial or to submit an affidavit requesting additional time for discovery. Ibid.; Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 56(e), (f).

If the burden of persuasion at trial would be on the non-moving party, the party moving for summary judgment may satisfy Rule 56’s burden of production in either of two ways. First, the moving party may submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim. Second, the moving party may demonstrate to the court that the nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim. See 10A Wright § 2727, pp. 130-131; Louis, Federal Summary Judgment Doctrine: A Critical Analysis, 83 Yale L. J. 745, 750 (1974) (hereinafter Louis). If the nonmoving party cannot muster sufficient evidence to make out its claim, a trial would be useless and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., ante, at 249.

Where the moving party adopts this second option and seeks summary judgment on the ground that the nonmoving party — who will bear the burden of persuasion at trial — has no evidence, the mechanics of discharging Rule 56’s burden of production are somewhat trickier. Plainly, a conclusory assertion that the nonmoving party has no evidence is insufficient. See ante, at 328 (White, J., concurring). Such a “burden” of production is no burden at all and would simply permit summary judgment procedure to be converted into a tool for harassment. See Louis 750-751. Rather, as the Court confirms, a party who moves for summary judgment on the ground that the nonmoving party has no evidence must affirmatively show the absence of evidence in the record. Ante, at 323. This may require the moving party to depose the nonmoving party’s witnesses or to establish the inadequacy of documentary evidence. If there is literally no evidence in the record, the moving party may demonstrate this by reviewing for the court the admissions, interrogatories, and other exchanges between the parties that are in the record. Either way, however, the moving party must affirmatively demonstrate that there is no evidence in the record to support a judgment for the nonmoving party.

If the moving party has not fully discharged this initial burden of production, its motion for summary judgment must be denied, and the court need not consider whether the moving party has met its ultimate burden of persuasion. Accordingly, the nonmoving party may defeat a motion for summary judgment that asserts that the nonmoving party has no evidence by calling the court’s attention to supporting evidence already in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the moving party. In that event, the moving party must respond by making an attempt to demonstrate the inadequacy of this evidence, for it is only by attacking all the record evidence allegedly supporting the nonmoving party that a party seeking summary judgment satisfies Rule 56’s burden of production. Thus, if the record disclosed that the moving party had overlooked a witness who would provide relevant testimony for the nonmoving party at trial, the court could not find that the moving party had discharged its initial burden of production unless the moving party sought to demonstrate the inadequacy of this witness’ testimony. Absent such a demonstration, summary judgment would have to be denied on the ground that the moving party had failed to meet its burden of production under Rule 56.

The result in Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., supra, is fully consistent with these principles. In that case, petitioner was refused service in respondent’s lunchroom and then was arrested for vagrancy by a local policeman as she left. Petitioner brought an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 claiming that the refusal of service and subsequent arrest were the product of a conspiracy between respondent and the police; as proof of this conspiracy, petitioner’s complaint alleged that the arresting officer was in respondent’s store at the time service was refused. Respondent subsequently moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was no actual evidence in the record from which a jury could draw an inference of conspiracy. In response, petitioner pointed to a statement from her own deposition and an unsworn statement by a Kress employee, both already in the record and both ignored by respondent, that the policeman who arrested petitioner was in the store at the time she was refused service. We agreed that “[i]f a policeman were present, ... it would be open to a jury, in light of the sequence that followed, to infer from the circumstances that the policeman and Kress employee had a ‘meeting of the minds’ and thus reached an understanding that petitioner should be refused service.” 398 U. S., at 158. Consequently, we held that it was error to grant summary judgment “on the basis of this record” because respondent had “failed to fulfill its initial burden” of demonstrating that there was no evidence that there was a policeman in the store. Id., at 157-158.

The opinion in Adickes has sometimes been read to hold that summary judgment was inappropriate because the respondent had not submitted affirmative evidence to negate the possibility that there was a policeman in the store. See Brief for Respondent 20, n. 30 (citing cases). The Court of Appeals apparently read Adickes this way and therefore required Celotex to submit evidence establishing that plaintiff’s decedent had not been exposed to Celotex asbestos. I agree with the Court that this reading of Adickes was erroneous and that Celotex could seek summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff could not prove exposure to Celotex asbestos at trial. However, Celotex was still required to satisfy its initial burden of production.

HH HH

I do not read the Court s opinion to say anything inconsistent with or different than the preceding discussion. My disagreement with the Court concerns the application of these principles to the facts of this case.

Defendant Celotex sought summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff had “failed to produce” any evidence that her decedent had ever been exposed to Celotex asbestos. App. 170. Celotex supported this motion with a two-page “Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue” and a three-page “Memorandum of Points and Authorities” which asserted that the plaintiff had failed to identify any evidence in responding to two sets of interrogatories propounded by Celotex and that therefore the record was “totally devoid” of evidence to support plaintiff’s claim. See id., at 171-176.

Approximately three months earlier, Celotex had filed an essentially identical motion. Plaintiff responded to this earlier motion by producing three pieces of evidence which she claimed “[a]t the very least . . . demonstrate that there is a genuine factual dispute for trial,” id., at 143: (1) a letter from an insurance representative of another defendant describing asbestos products to which plaintiff’s decedent had been exposed, id., at 160; (2) a letter from T. R. Hoff, a former supervisor of decedent, describing asbestos products to which decedent had been exposed, id., at 162; and (3) a copy of decedent’s deposition from earlier workmen’s compensation proceedings, id., at 164. Plaintiff also apparently indicated at that time that she intended to call Mr. Hoff as a witness at trial. Tr. of Oral Arg. 6-7, 27-29.

Celotex subsequently withdrew its first motion for summary judgment. See App. 167. However, as a result of this motion, when Celotex filed its second summary judgment motion, the record did contain evidence — including at least one witness — supporting plaintiff’s claim. Indeed, counsel for Celotex admitted to this Court at oral argument that Celotex was aware of this evidence and of plaintiff’s intention to call Mr. Hoff as a witness at trial when the second summary judgment motion was filed. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-7. Moreover, plaintiff’s response to Celotex’ second motion pointed to this evidence — noting that it had already been provided to counsel for Celotex in connection with the first motion — and argued that Celotex had failed to “meet its burden of proving that there is no genuine factual dispute for trial.” App. 188.

On these facts, there is simply no question that Celotex failed to discharge its initial burden of production. Having chosen to base its motion on the argument that there was no evidence in the record to support plaintiff’s claim, Celotex was not free to ignore supporting evidence that the record clearly contained. Rather, Celotex was required, as an initial matter, to attack the adequacy of this evidence. Celotex’ failure to fulfill this simple requirement constituted a failure to discharge its initial burden of production under Rule 56, and thereby rendered summary judgment improper.

This case is indistinguishable from Adickes. Here, as there, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the record contained no evidence to support an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim. Here, as there, the plaintiff responded by drawing the court’s attention to evidence that was already in the record and that had been ignored by the moving party. Consequently, here, as there, summary judgment should be denied on the ground that the moving party failed to satisfy its initial burden of production.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

As the Court points out, ante, at 319-320, petitioner’s motion for summary judgment was based on the proposition that respondent could not prevail unless she proved that her deceased husband had been exposed to petitioner’s products “within the jurisdictional limits” of the District of Columbia. Respondent made an adequate showing — albeit possibly not in admissible form — that her husband had been exposed to petitioner’s product in Illinois. Although the basis of the motion and the argument had been the lack of exposure in the District of Columbia, the District Court stated at the end of the argument: “The Court will grant the defendant Celotex’s motion for summary judgment there being no showing that the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant Celotex’s product in the District of Columbia or elsewhere within the statutory period.” App. 217 (emphasis added). The District Court offered no additional explanation and no written opinion. The Court of Appeals reversed on the basis that Celotex had not met its burden; the court noted the incongruity of the District Court’s opinion in the context of the motion and argument, but did not rest on that basis because of the “or elsewhere” language.

Taken in the context of the motion for summary judgment on the basis of no exposure in the District of Columbia, the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment was palpably erroneous. The court’s bench reference to “or elsewhere” neither validated that decision nor raised the complex question addressed by this Court today. In light of the District Court’s plain error, therefore, it is perfectly clear that, even after this Court’s abstract exercise in Rule construction, we should nonetheless affirm the reversal of summary judgment on that narrow ground.

I respectfully dissent.

       Since our grant of certiorari in this case, the Fifth Circuit has rendered a decision squarely rejecting the position adopted here by the District of Columbia Circuit. See Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F. 2d 1190 (1986).

       Justice Stevens, in dissent, argues that the District Court granted summary judgment only because respondent presented no evidence that the decedent was exposed to Celotex asbestos products in the District of Columbia. See post, at 338-339. According to Justice Stevens, we should affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversing the District Court, on the “narrower ground” that respondent “made an adequate showing” that the decedent was exposed to Celotex asbestos products in Chicago during 1970-1971. See ibid.

      Justice Stevens’ position is factually incorrect. The District Court expressly stated that respondent had made no showing of exposure to Celotex asbestos products “in the District of Columbia or elsewhere.” App. 217 (emphasis added). Unlike Justice Stevens, we assume that the District Court meant what it said. The majority of the Court of Appeals addressed the very issue raised by Justice Stevens, and decided that “[t]he District Court’s grant of summary judgment must therefore have been based on its conclusion that there was ‘no showing that the plaintiff was exposed to defendant Celotex’s product in the District of Columbia or elsewhere within the statutory period.’” Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 244 U. S. App. D. C. 160, 162, n. 3, 756 F. 2d 181, 183, n. 3 (1985) (emphasis in original). In other words, no judge involved in this case to date shares Justice Stevens’ view of the District Court’s decision.

       Rule 56(e) provides:
      “Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits. When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.”

       Rule 56(e) provides:
      “The motion shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing. The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits. The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.”

       See Louis, Federal Summary Judgment Doctrine: A Critical Analysis, 83 Yale L. J. 745, 752 (1974); Currie, Thoughts on Directed Verdicts and Summary Judgments, 45 U. Chi. L. Rev. 72, 79 (1977).

       Rule 56(f) provides:
      “Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that he cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.”

       It is also unclear what the Court of Appeals is supposed to do in this case on remand. Justice White — who has provided the Court’s fifth vote — plainly believes that the Court of Appeals should reevaluate whether the defendant met its initial burden of production. However, the decision to reverse rather than to vacate the judgment below implies that the Court of Appeals should assume that Celotex has met its initial burden of production and ask only whether the plaintiff responded adequately, and, if so, whether the defendant has met its ultimate burden of persuasion that no genuine issue exists for trial. Absent some clearer expression from the Court to the contrary, Justice White’s understanding would seem to be controlling. Cf. Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188, 193 (1977).

       The burden of persuasion imposed on a moving party by Rule 56 is a stringent one. 6 Moore ¶56.15[3], p. 56-466; 10A Wright §2727, p. 124. Summary judgment should not be granted unless it is clear that a trial is unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., ante, at 255, and any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial should be resolved against the moving party, Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 158-159 (1970). In determining whether a moving party has met its burden of persuasion, the court is obliged to take account of the entire setting of the case and must consider all papers of record as well as any materials prepared for the motion. 10A Wright §2721, p. 44; see, e. g., Stepanischen v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Corp., 722 F. 2d 922, 930 (CA1 1983); Higgenbotham v. Ochsner Foundation Hospital, 607 F. 2d 653, 656 (CA5 1979). As explained by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F. 2d 238 (1983), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574 (1986), “[i]f. . . there is any evidence in the record from any source from which a reasonable inference in the [nonmoving party’s] favor may be drawn, the moving party simply cannot obtain a summary judgment. . . .” 723 F. 2d, at 258.

       Once the moving party has attacked whatever record evidence — if any — the nonmoving party purports to rely upon, the burden of production shifts to the nonmoving party, who must either (1) rehabilitate the evidence attacked in the moving party’s papers, (2) produce additional evidence showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial as provided in Rule 56(e), or (3) submit an affidavit explaining why further discovery is necessary as provided in Rule 56(f). See 10A Wright § 2727, pp. 138-143. Summary judgment should be granted if the nonmoving party fails to respond in one or more of these ways, or if, after the nonmoving party responds, the court determines that the moving party has met its ultimate burden of persuading the court that there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial. See, e. g., First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U. S. 253, 289 (1968).

       Justice Stevens asserts that the District Court granted summary-judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show exposure in the District of Columbia. He contends that the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the District Court’s judgment should be affirmed on the “narrow ground” that it was “palpably erroneous” to grant summary judgment on this basis. Post, at 339 (dissenting). The Court replies that what the District Court said was that plaintiff had failed to show exposure in the District of Columbia “or elsewhere.” Ante, at 320, n. 2. In my view, it does not really matter which reading is correct in this case. For, contrary to Justice Stevens’ claim, deciding this case on the ground that Celotex failed to meet its burden of production under Rule 56 does not involve an “abstract exercise in Rule construction.” Post, at 339 (Stevens, J., dissenting). To the contrary, the principles governing a movant’s burden of proof are straightforward and well established, and deciding the case on this basis does not require a new construction of Rule 56 at all; it simply entails applying established law to the particular facts of this case. The choice to reverse because of “palpable erro[r]” with respect to the burden of a moving party under Rule 56 is thus no more “abstract” than the choice to reverse because of such error with respect to the elements of a tort claim. Indeed, given that the issue of the moving party’s burden under Rule 56 was the basis of the Court of Appeals’ decision, the question upon which certiorari was granted, and the issue briefed by the parties and argued to the Court, it would seem to be the preferable ground for deciding the case.

       Celotex apparently withdrew this motion because, contrary to the assertion made in the first summary judgment motion, its second set of interrogatories had not been served on the plaintiff.

       If the plaintiff had answered Celotex’ second set of interrogatories with the evidence in her response to the first summary judgment motion, and Celotex had ignored those interrogatories and based its second summary judgment motion on the first set of interrogatories only, Celotex obviously could not claim to have discharged its Rule 56 burden of production. This result should not be different simply because the evidence plaintiff relied upon to support her claim was acquired by Celotex other than in plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories.

       Although .Justice White agrees that “if [plaintiff] has named a witness to support her claim, summary judgment should not be granted ■without Celotex somehow showing that the named witness’ possible testimony raises no genuine issue of material fact,” he would remand “[b]eeause the Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to address this aspect of the case.” Ante, at 328-329 (concurring). However, Celotex has admitted that plaintiff had disclosed her intent to call Mr. Hoff as a witness at trial before Celotex filed its second motion for summary judgment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 6-7. Under the circumstances, then, remanding is a waste of time.

       See Motion of Defendant Celotex Corporation for Summary Judgment, App. 170 (“Defendant Celotex Corporation, pursuant to Rule 56 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure moves this Court for an Order granting Summary Judgment on the ground that plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that any product designed, manufactured or distributed by Celotex Corporation was the proximate cause of the injuries alleged within the jurisdictional limits of this Court”) (emphasis added); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion of Defendant Celotex Corporation for Summary Judgment, id., at 175 (Plaintiff “must demonstrate some link between a Celotex Corporation product claimed to be the cause of the decedent’s illness and the decedent himself. The record is totally devoid of any such evidence within the jurisdictional confines of this Court”) (emphasis added); Transcript of Argument in Support of Motion of Defendant Celotex Corporation for Summary Judgment, id., at 211 (“Our position is . . . there has been no product identification of any Celotex products . . . that have been used in the District of Columbia to which the decedent was exposed”) (emphasis added).

       But cf. ante, at 324 (“We do not mean that the nonmoving party must produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment”).

       See App. 160 (letter from Aetna Life Insurance Co.) (referring to the “asbestos that Mr. Catrett came into contact with while working for Anning-Johnson Company” and noting that the “manufacturer of this product” was purchased by Celotex); id., at 162 (letter from Anning-Johnson Co.) (confirming that Catrett worked for the company and supervised the installation of asbestos produced by the company that Celotex ultimately purchased); id., at 164,164c (deposition of Catrett) (description of his work with asbestos “in Chicago”).

       See Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 756 F. 2d 181, 185, n. 14 (1985) (“[T]he discussion at the time the motion was granted actually spoke to venue. It was only the phrase ‘or elsewhere,’ appearing with no prior discussion, in the judge’s oral ruling at the close of argument that made the grant of summary judgment even conceivably proper”).

       Cf. n. 2, supra. The Court’s statement that the case should be remanded because the Court of Appeals has a “superior knowledge of local law*” ante, at 327, is bewildering because there is no question of local law to be decided. Cf. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 345-347 (1976).
      The Court’s decision to remand when a sufficient ground for affirmance is available does reveal, however, the Court’s increasing tendency to adopt a presumption of reversal. See, e. g., New York v. P. J. Video, Inc., 475 U. S. 868, 884 (1986) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U. S. 709, 715 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting); City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U. S. 796, 800 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer, 474 U. S. 28, 31 (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting). As a matter of efficient judicial administration and of respect for the state and federal courts, I believe the presumption should be precisely the opposite.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Stevens Justice White, Justice Rehnquist,

license: Public Domain

text:
    MacDONALD, SOMMER & FRATES v. COUNTY OF YOLO et al.
    No. 84-2015.
    Argued March 26, 1986
    Decided June 25, 1986
    Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. White, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Burger, C. J., joined and in Parts I, II, and III of which Powell and Rehnquist, JJ., joined, post, p. 353. Rehnquist, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Powell, J., joined, post, p. 364.

      Howard N. Ellman argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Gus Bauman, Kenneth N. Burns, Scott C. Verges, and Edward R. MacDonald.

      William L. Owen argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Richard W. Sherwood, Charles R. Mack, and P. Lawrence Klose

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Adirondack Park Local Government Review Board et al. by Ronald A. Zumbrun, Robert K. Best, and Thomas W. Birmingham; for the American College of Real Estate Lawyers by Robert 0. Hetlage, Eugene J. Morris, John P. Tre-vaskis, Jr., and Edward I. Cutler; for the California Building Industry Association by Rex E. Lee, Benjamin W. Heineman, Jr., and Carter G. Phillips; for the First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale, Cal., et al. by J err old A. Fadem and Michael M. Berger; for Lodestar Co. by Gideon Kanner; and for the Mid-America Legal Foundation by John M. Cannon, Susan W. Wanat, and Ann Plunkett Sheldon.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the city of Mountain View, Cal., et al. by Peter D. Bulens, Robert J. Logan, Carter J. Stroud, Albert E. Polonsky, R. R. Campagna, Robert J. Lanzone, Mary Jo Levinger, Steven F. Nord, K. Duane Lyders, John W. Witt, Hadden Roth, and Robert Rogers; for the American Farmland Trust et al. by Fred P. Bosselman and Clijford L. Weaver; for the County Supervisors Association of California by Mark A. Wasser; and for the National Association of Counties et al. by Benna Ruth Solomon and Joyce Holmes Benjamin.

      Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the United States by Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Habicht, Deputy Solicitor General Kuhl, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Marzulla, and Peter R. Steen-land; for the State of California ex reí. John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, et al. by Mr. Van de Kamp, Richard C. Jacobs, N. Gregory Taylor, and Theodora Berger, Assistant Attorneys General, and Craig C. Thompson and Richard M. Frank, Deputy Attorneys General, joined by the Attorneys General of their respective jurisdictions as follows: Harold M. Brown of Alaska, Francis X. Bellotti of Massachusetts, LeRoy S. Zimmerman of Pennsylvania, Charles M. Oberly III of Delaware, Jim Smith of Florida, L. Su’ esu’ Lutu of American Samoa, Leroy Mercer of the Virgin Islands, Richard Opper of Guam, Corinne K. A. Watanabe of Hawaii, James T. Jones of Idaho, Neil F. Hartigan of Illinois, Linley E. Pearson of Indiana, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, William J. Guste, Jr., of Louisiana, James E. Tierney of Maine, Stephen H. Sachs of Maryland, Frank J. Kelley of Michigan, William L. Webster of Missouri, Jeffrey L. Amestoy of Vermont, Hubert H. Humphrey III of Minnesota, Robert Abrams of New York, T. Travis Medlock of South Carolina, Jim Maddox of Texas, David L. Wilkenson of Utah, Kenneth 0. Eikenberry of Washington, Bronson C. La Follette of Wisconsin, and Archie G. McClintock of Wyoming; for the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers et al. by Roy D. Bates, Wil

        liam I. Thornton, Jr., John W. Witt, Roger F. Cutter, George Agnost, J. Lamar Shelley, Robert J. Alfton, James K. Baker, Frank B. Gummey III, James D. Montgomery, Clifford D. Pierce, Jr., William H. Taube, and Charles S. Rhyne; and for the Conservation Foundation et al. by Charles L. Siemon, Wendy U. Larsen, and Christopher J. Duerksen.

   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented is whether rejection of a subdivision proposal deprived appellant of its property without just compensation contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

h — I

This appeal is taken from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to a property owner’s complaint for money damages for an alleged “taking” of its property. In 1975, appellant submitted a tentative subdivision map to the Yolo County Planning Commission. Under appellant’s proposal, the subject property, at least part of which was planted with corn, would be subdivided into 159 single-family and multifamily residential lots.

The Yolo County Planning Commission rejected the subdivision plan, however, and the Board of Supervisors of the county affirmed that determination. The Board found numerous reasons why appellant’s tentative subdivision map was neither “consistent with the General Plan of the County of Yolo, nor with the specific plan of the County of Yolo embodied in the Zoning Regulations for the County.” App. 73. Appellant focuses our attention on four of those reasons. See id., at 45-46 (fourth amended complaint). First, the Board criticized the plan because it failed to provide for access to the proposed subdivision by a public street: the city of Davis, to which the subdivision would adjoin, refused to permit the extension of Cowell Boulevard into the development. See id., at 74. Even ignoring this obstacle, “[t]he map presented ma[de] no provision for any other means of access to the subdivision,” and the Board calculated that relying on an extension of Cowell Boulevard alone would “constitute] a real and substantial danger to the public health in the event of fire, earthquake, flood, or other natural disaster.” Id., at 77.

Second, the Board found that appellant’s “Tentative Map as presented [did] not provide for sewer service by any governmental entity”:

“The only means for provision of sewer services by the El Macero interceptor sewer require that the proposed subdivision anne[x] to the existing Community Services Area. Said annexation is subject to Local Agency Formation Commission jurisdiction. The Board finds that no proceedings currently are pending before LAFCO for the annexation of the proposed subdivision.” Id., at 75.

Third, the Board rejected the development plan because “[t]he level of [police] protection capable of being afforded to the proposed site by the [Yolo County] Sheriff’s Department is not intense enough to meet the needs of the proposed subdivision.” Id., at 76. Fourth, the Board found inadequate the provision for water service for the reason that there was “no provision made in the proposed subdivision for the provision of water or maintenance of a water system for the subdivision by any governmental entity.” Ibid.

After this rebuff, appellant filed the present action and, on the same day, a petition for a writ of mandate. The mandate action, which is still pending, seeks to set aside the Board’s decision and to direct the Board to reconsider appellant’s subdivision proposal. See id,., at 32-33 (amended petition for writ of mandate). This action, in contrast, seeks declaratory and monetary relief. In it, appellant accuses appellees County of Yolo and city of Davis of “restricting the Property to an open-space agricultural use by denying all permit applications, subdivision maps, and other requests to implement any other use,” id., at 46, and thereby of appropriating the “entire economic use” of appellant’s property “for the sole purpose of [providing] ... a public, open-space buffer,” id., at 51. In particular, the fourth amended complaint challenges the Board’s decision with respect to the adequacy of public access, sanitation services, water supplies, and fire and police protection. Because appellees denied these services, according to the complaint, “none of the beneficial uses” allowed even for agricultural land would be suitable for appellant’s property. Id., at 52. The complaint alleged, in capital letters and “Without limitation by the foregoing ENUMERATION,” that “ANY APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE, VARIANCE OR OTHER RELIEF WOULD BE FUTILE.” Id., at 58. The complaint also alleged that appellant had “exhausted all of its administrative remedies” and that its seven causes of action were “ripe” for adjudication. Id., at 58, 59.

In response to these charges appellees demurred. Pointing to “its earlier Order Sustaining Demurrers and Granting Leave to Amend,” the California Superior Court contended that “the property had obvious other uses than agriculture under the Yolo County Code,” id., at 115, and referenced sections permitting such uses, among others, as ranch and farm dwellings and agricultural storage facilities, see Yolo County Code §§8-2.502, 8-2.503. The court rejected appellant’s “attemp[t] to overcome that defect by alleging as conclusion-ary fact that each and every principal use and each and every multiple accessory use is no longer possible so that the property does have no value as zoned.” App. 115. It concluded that, irrespective of the insufficiency of appellant’s factual allegations, monetary damages for inverse condemnation are foreclosed by the California Supreme Court’s decision in Agins v. City of Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d 266, 274-277, 598 P. 2d 25, 29-31 (1979), aff’d, 447 U. S. 255 (1980). App. 116, 118.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed. It “accepted] as true all the properly pled factual allegations of the complaint,” id., at 126, and did “not consider whether the complaint was barred by the failure to exhaust administrative remedies or by res judicata,” id., at 125-126. But it “f[ou]nd the decision in Agins to be controlling herein,” id., at 130:

“In that case the [California] Supreme Court specifically and clearly established, for policy reasons, a rule of law which precludes a landowner from recovering in inverse condemnation based upon land use regulation. We emphasize that the Court did not hold that regulation cannot amount to a taking without compensation, it simply held that in such event the remedy is not inverse condemnation. The remedy instead is an action to have the regulation set aside as unconstitutional. Plaintiff has filed a mandate action in the trial court which is currently pending. That is its proper remedy. The claim for inverse condemnation cannot be maintained.” Id., at 130-131 (citation and footnote omitted).

In the alternative, the California Court of Appeal determined that appellant would not be entitled to monetary relief even if California law provided for this remedy:

“In any event, even if an inverse condemnation action were available in a land use regulation situation, we would be constrained to hold that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. Pared to their essence, the allegations are that plaintiff purchased property for residential development, the property is zoned for residential development, plaintiff submitted an application for approval of development of the property into 159 residential units, and, in part at the urging of the City, the County denied approval of the application. In these allegations plaintiff is not unlike the plaintiffs in Agins ... [a case in which] both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to allege facts which would establish an unconstitutional taking of private property.
“The plaintiff’s claim here must fail for the same reasons the claims in Agins failed. Here plaintiff applied for approval of a particular and relatively intensive residential development and the application was denied. The denial of that particular plan cannot be equated with a refusal to permit any development, and plaintiff concedes that the property is zoned for residential purposes in the County general plan and zoning ordinance. Land use planning is not an all-or-nothing proposition. A governmental entity is not required to permit a landowner to develop property to [the] full extent he might desire or be charged with an unconstitutional taking of the property. Here, as in Agins, the refusal of the defendants to permit the intensive development desired by the landowner does not preclude less intensive, but still valuable development. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a cause of action.” Id,., at 132-133 (citation omitted).

The California Supreme Court denied appellant’s petition for hearing, and appellant perfected an appeal to this Court. Because of the importance of the question whether a monetary remedy in inverse condemnation is constitutionally required in appropriate cases involving regulatory takings, we noted probable jurisdiction. 474 U. S. 917 (1985). On further consideration of our jurisdiction to hear this appeal, aided by briefing and oral argument, we find ourselves unable to address the merits of this question.

I — I I — I

The regulatory takings claim advanced by appellant has two components. First, appellant must establish that the regulation has in substance “taken” his property — that is, that the regulation “goes too far.” Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415 (1922). See Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 178 (1979). Second, appellant must demonstrate that any proffered compensation is not “just.”

It follows from the nature of a regulatory takings claim that an essential prerequisite to its assertion is a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property. A court cannot determine whether a regulation has gone “too far” unless it knows how far the regulation goes. As Justice Holmes emphasized throughout his opinion for the Court in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S., at 416, “this is a question of degree — and therefore cannot be disposed of by general propositions.” Accord, id., at 413. To this day we have no “set formula to determine where regulation ends and taking begins.” Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U. S. 590, 594 (1962). Instead, we rely “as much [on] the exercise of judgment as [on] the application of logic.” Andrus v. Allard, 444 U. S. 51, 65 (1979). Our cases have accordingly “examined the ‘taking’ question by engaging in essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries that have identified several factors — such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action — that have particular significance.” Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S., at 175. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 124 (1978) (“ad hoc, factual inquiries”); United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U. S. 155, 168 (1958) (“question properly turning upon the particular circumstances of each case”). Until a property owner has “obtained a final decision regarding the application of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to its property,” “it is impossible to tell whether the land retain[s] any reasonable beneficial use or whether [existing] expectation interests ha[ve] been destroyed.” Williamson Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S. 172, 186, 190, n. 11 (1985). As we explained last Term:

“[T]he difficult problem [is] how to define “too far,” that is, how to distinguish the point at which regulation becomes so onerous that it has the same effect as an appropriation of the property through eminent domain or physical possession. . . . [Resolution of that question depends, in significant part, upon an analysis of the effect the Commission’s application of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations had on the value of respondent’s property and investment-backed profit expectation. That effect cannot be measured until a final decision is made as to how the regulations will be applied to respondent’s property.” Id., at 199-200 (footnote omitted).

Accord, id., at 191.

For similar reasons, a court cannot determine whether a municipality has failed to provide “just compensation” until it knows what, if any, compensation the responsible administrative body intends to provide. See id., at 195 (“[T]he State’s action here is not ‘complete’ until the State fails to provide adequate compensation for the taking” (footnote omitted)). The local agencies charged with administering regulations governing property development are singularly flexible institutions; what they take with the one hand they may give back with the other. In Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, for example, we recognized that the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the administrative body primarily responsible for administering New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Law, had authority in appropriate circumstances to authorize alterations, remit taxes, and transfer development rights to ensure the landmark owner a reasonable return on its property. See 438 U. S., at 112-115, and n. 13. Because the railroad had “not sought approval for the construction of a smaller structure” than its proposed 50-plus story office building, id., at 137; see id., at 137, n. 34, and because its development rights in the airspace above its Grand Central Station Terminal were transferable “to at least eight parcels in the vicinity of the Terminal, one or two of which ha[d] been found suitable for the construction of a new office building,” id., at 137, we concluded that “the application of New York City’s Landmarks Law ha[d] not effected a ‘taking’ of [the railroad’s] property,” id., at 138. Whether the inquiry asks if a regulation has “gone too far,” or whether it seeks to determine if proffered compensation is “just,” no answer is possible until a court knows what use, if any, may be made of the affected property.

Our cases uniformly reflect an insistence on knowing the nature and extent of permitted development before adjudicating the constitutionality of the regulations that purport to limit it. Thus, in Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255 (1980), we held that zoning ordinances which authorized the development of between one and five single-family residences on appellants’ 5-acre tract did not effect a taking of their property on their face, and, because appellants had not made application for any improvements to their property, the constitutionality of any particular application of the ordinances was not properly before us. See id., at 260. Similarly, in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621 (1981), we dismissed the appeal because it did not appear that the city’s rezoning and adoption of an open space plan had deprived the utility of all beneficial use of its property. See id., at 631-632, and n. 12. Because the California Court of Appeal had “not decided whether any taking in fact ha[d] occurred, . . . further proceedings [were] necessary to resolve the federal question whether there has been a taking at all.” Id., at 633. As a consequence, the judgment was not final for purposes of our jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257. Ibid. Most recently, in Williamson Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, we held that the developer’s failure either to seek variances that would have allowed it to develop the property in accordance with its proposed plat, or to avail itself of an available and facially adequate state procedure by which it might obtain “just compensation,” meant that its regulatory taking claim was premature.

Here, in comparison to the situations of the property owners in the three preceding cases, appellant has submitted one subdivision proposal and has received the Board’s response thereto. Nevertheless, appellant still has yet to receive the Board’s “final, definitive position regarding how it will apply the regulations at issue to the particular land in question.” Williamson Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S., at 191. In Agins, San Diego Gas & Electric, and William son Planning Comm’n, we declined to reach the question whether the Constitution requires a monetary remedy to redress some regulatory takings because the records in those cases left us uncertain whether the property at issue had in fact been taken. Likewise, in this case, the holdings of both courts below leave open the possibility that some development will be permitted, and thus again leave us in doubt regarding the antecedent question whether appellant’s property has been taken. The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

Justice White,

with whom The Chief Justice joins and with whom Justice Powell and Justice Rehnquist join as to Parts I, II, and III, dissenting.

The Court acknowledges that we noted probable jurisdiction in this case “[bjecause of the importance of the question whether a monetary remedy in inverse condemnation is constitutionally required in appropriate cases involving regulatory takings,” ante, at 348, but avoids this issue by holding that the antecedent question — whether appellant adequately stated a takings claim — should be answered in the negative. I disagree. The factual allegations that we must consider, when the opinion below is correctly read, do state a takings claim and therefore present the remedial question that we have thrice before sought to resolve. See Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S. 172 (1985); San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621 (1981); Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255 (1980).

HH

The Court recognizes that “the complaint alleged that appellant was deprived of all beneficial use of its property,” ante, at 352, n. 8, but concludes:

“The California Court of Appeal, whose opinion on matters of local law and local pleading we must respect, cf. Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 259-260, n. 5 (1980), apparently rejected what the Superior Court labeled a ‘conclusionary’ allegation of futility, and explained that appellant could seek an administrative application of the Yolo County General Plan and Zoning Ordinances to its property which, for aught that appears, would allow development to proceed.” Ibid.

The Court thus ignores the allegations in the complaint that the effect of the county’s denial of appellant’s subdivision application in conjunction with the reasons behind that denial and other actions taken by the appellees has been to deprive the appellant of any use of its property “which is not (a) economically infeasible, (b) prohibited by law, or (c) prevented by actions taken by [the appellees].” Fourth Amended Complaint, App. 46. The Court also disregards appellant’s allegation that the actions of the appellees demonstrate “That ANY APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE, VARIANCE OR OTHER relief would be futile.” Id., at 58. Instead, the Court focuses on the denial of the particular subdivision application alone.

In my view, the Court does not fairly read the record and the opinion below. Appellant’s initial complaint filed in Superior Court alleged that although the property was zoned for residential use by the county it was designated an “Agricultural Preserve or Reserve” by the city. The complaint further alleged that even though the property lay in the county outside of the city’s boundaries, the county implemented city policy relegating the land to agricultural uses. See Complaint of Oct. 13, 1977, pp. 9-12. Finally, the complaint asserted that the property was agriculturally impaired and could not economically be used for agricultural purposes. See id., at 5, 16.

In sustaining the appellees’ demurrer to this complaint, the Superior Court accepted as true the allegation that the property had effectively been rezoned agricultural but noted that there was no allegation that the property could not be used for a variety of nonagricultural purposes explicitly allowed in agricultural zones under the county and city codes. See Order of Mar. 30, 1978, in No. 36655 (Cal. Super. Ct., Yolo County), pp. 6-8. .The conclusion was that “[t]he failure to allege the property in question useless for other permitted purposes in an agricultural zone over and above an agricultural use renders the [inverse condemnation cause of action] demurrable.” Id., at 8.

In the Fourth Amended Complaint, the complaint that formed the basis for the judgment below, appellant responded to this earlier ruling by specifically alleging that the property was not suitable for the other uses permitted in an agricultural zone and by asserting facts in support of this allegation. See App. 52-58. The Superior Court, however, indicated that it found these allegations “conclusionary,” although it did not rely on this determination in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint, relying instead on the California Supreme Court’s general ruling in Agins v. City of Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d 266, 272-277, 598 P. 2d 25, 28-31 (1979), aff’d on other grounds, 447 U. S. 255 (1980), that no inverse condemnation action may be brought as a result of a land use regulation. The crucial fact here is that the Superior Court denominated “conclusionary” only those allegations in the complaint that rejected the possibility of feasible nonagri-cultural uses of the property that would be consistent with agricultural zoning. It did not categorize as “conclusionary” appellant’s allegations that all economically beneficial residential uses were foreclosed by the appellees’ actions.

In reviewing the Superior Court’s ruling on the demurrer to the Fourth Amended Complaint, the California Court of Appeal first noted that it would not consider whether the complaint was barred by the failure to exhaust administrative remedies or by res judicata. App. 125-126. It then summarized the allegations of the complaint, including the allegations that the property was not suitable for agricultural use or any of the other uses permitted in the county code and that it was suitable for residential use but that the county and city had acted to prevent this use entirely. Id., at 127-129. The Court of Appeal also noted that appellant had alleged that “[a]ny application for a zone change, variance or other relief would be futile.” Id., at 129. Nowhere did the court state that as a matter of California demurrer law it was rejecting any of these allegations as not properly pleaded. And nowhere did it refer to the Superior Court’s statement that the allegations as to the infeasibility of the nonagricul-tural uses that would be consistent with agricultural zoning might not be properly pleaded.

Having recited all of these allegations without indicating that it was rejecting any of them, the Court of Appeal first held that no cause of action was stated in inverse condemnation. This holding, it noted, was compelled by the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Agins that there is no such remedy for takings alleged to result from land use regulation. Id., at 130-132. See Agins, 24 Cal. 3d, at 272-277, 598 P. 2d, at 28-31.

In the alternative, however, the Court of Appeal found that even if such a cause of action were available, appellant had not stated a takings claim. The court concluded that “[p]ared to their essence, the allegations are that [appellant] purchased property for residential development, the property is zoned for residential development, [appellant] submitted an application for approval of development of the property into 159 residential units, and, in part at the urging of the City, the County denied approval of the application.” App. 132. The court then observed that this situation was “not unlike” that in Agins, in which a zoning ordinance that restricted a landowner of five acres to building a maximum of five residences on his property was found not to constitute a taking since on its face the ordinance still allowed that level of development, which was a reasonable use of the property. See Agins, 447 U. S., at 262-263; Agins, 24 Cal. 3d, at 277, 598 P. 2d, at 31. Citing Agins, the Court of Appeal than determined that appellant had not stated a takings cause of action because appellees’ refusal to allow the intensive development requested by appellant “does not preclude less intensive, but still valuable development.” App. 133.

In my view, given the absence of any expression of disapproval by the Court of Appeal of any of the appellant’s allegations summarized in its opinion and given the fact that the Superior Court had not labeled appellant’s allegations of futility “conclusionary,” there is no reason to read into this last statement by the Court of Appeal a state-law ruling that the allegations of futility were not well pleaded. Instead, the Court of Appeal’s focus on what it termed the essence of appellant’s complaint together with its conclusion that with respect to these essential allegations this case was analytically the same as Agins imply that it believed that as a matter of federal takings law certain allegations controlled in terms of determining if a takings claim had been stated. Specifically, in concluding that the allegations of futility were not material and in determining that under Agins further application must be made before a takings claim could be stated, the Court of Appeal held that no takings cause of action had been stated because no reapplication had been made, even if further application would be useless.

II

Whethera regulatory taking has occurred is an inquiry that cannot be completed until a final decision is made as to how the allegedly confiscatory regulations apply to the pertinent property. Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n, 473 U. S., at 190-191. Thus, in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 136-137 (1978), and in Agins, supra, at 262-263, we considered for takings purposes only the actual regulatory decision that had been made by the governmental decisionmaker; we declined to speculate as to further restrictions that might be imposed. In Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 293-297 (1981), we refused to consider a takings claim based on general regulatory provisions that had not yet been applied to specific properties and that were susceptible of administrative exemption. Most recently, in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n, the Court determined that the denial of a particular use for a property did not constitute a final decision where variance procedures were available that “[left] open the possibility that [the landowner] may develop the subdivision according to its plat after obtaining the variances.” 473 U. S., at 193-194.

These holdings recognize that a regulatory takings determination is closely tied to the facts of a particular case and that there is often an ongoing process by which the relevant regulatory decisions are made. Given these characteristics of a regulatory taking, the final decision requirement is necessary to ensure that “the initial decisionmaker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury.” Id., at 193. Nothing in our cases, however, suggests that the decisionmaker’s definitive position may be determined only from explicit denials of property-owner applications for development. Nor do these cases suggest that repeated applications and denials are necessary to pinpoint that position.

Moreover, I see no reason for importing such a requirement into the “final decision” analysis. A decisionmaker’s definitive position may sometimes be determined by factors other than its actual decision on the issue in question. For example, if a landowner applies to develop its land in a relatively intensive manner that is consistent with the applicable zoning requirements and if the governmental body denies that application, explaining that all development will be barred under its interpretation of the zoning ordinance, I would find that a final decision barring all development has been made — even though the landowner did not apply for a less intensive development. Although a landowner must pursue reasonably available avenues that might allow relief, it need not, I believe, take patently fruitless measures.

The Court of Appeal’s reliance on Agins in this case was therefore misplaced. Appellant alleged not simply that its application had been denied but that the overall effect of (1) that denial, (2) the reasons given for the denial, and (3) other actions taken by appellees to prevent appellant from ever being able to meet county development requirements was that appellant’s property had been taken. When the Court of Appeal purported to reduce appellant’s claim to its essence, it ignored a critical distinction between Agins, in which there was no indication that upon application the property owner would not be allowed to develop his property in some economically beneficial manner, and the factual situation here, in which further application would allegedly be futile. In this case, I believe that appellant sufficiently alleged a final decision denying it all reasonable economically beneficial use of its property.

Ill

Assuming that appellant adequately alleged a final decision, the next question is whether a takings cause of action was stated by the allegations in the complaint. Discerning the answer to this question involves two separate inquiries: Whether a land use regulation restricting the use of property may ever amount to a taking and, if the answer to this first inquiry is affirmative, whether the allegations here are sufficient to state a takings claim.

As to the first question, our cases have long indicated that police-power regulations may rise to the level of a taking if the restrictions they impose are sufficiently severe. See, e. g., Agins, 447 U. S., at 260; PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74, 83 (1980); Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 174-175 (1979); Andrus v. Allard, 444 U. S. 51, 65-66 (1979); Penn Central, supra, at 130-131, 138, n. 36; United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U. S. 155, 168 (1958); Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415-416 (1922). Nevertheless, the California Supreme Court in Agins concluded:

“[A] landowner alleging that a zoning ordinance has deprived him of substantially all use of his land may attempt through declaratory relief or mandamus to invalidate the ordinance as excessive regulation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ... He may not, however, elect to sue in inverse condemnation and thereby transmute an excessive use of the police power into a lawful taking for which compensation in eminent domain must be paid.” 24 Cal. 3d, at 273, 598 P. 2d, at 28.

In addition to being inconsistent with this Court’s statements, this view, as Justice Brennan explained in his dissent in San Diego Gas, ignores the fact that

“[pjolice power regulations such as zoning ordinances and other land-use restrictions can destroy the use and enjoyment of property in order to promote the public good just as effectively as formal condemnation or physical invasion of property. From the property owner’s point of view, it may matter little whether his land is condemned or flooded, or whether it is restricted by regulation to use in its natural state, if the effect in both cases is to deprive him of all beneficial use of it. From the government’s point of view, the benefits flowing to the public from preservation of open space through regulation may be equally great as from creating a wildlife refuge through formal condemnation or increasing electricity production through a dam project that floods private property. ... It is only logical, then, that government action other than acquisition of title, occupancy, or physical invasion can be a ‘taking,’ and therefore a defacto exercise of the power of eminent domain, where the effects completely deprive the owner of all or most of his interest in the property.” 450 U. S., at 652-653 (citations and footnotes omitted).

I agree that land use restrictions may constitute a taking under the Constitution.

This resolution of the general question brings me to the more specific question whether the allegations in the complaint here were sufficient to state a takings claim. Here, appellant alleged the existence of a final decision denying it all economically beneficial use of its property. It also alleged that it had paid “good and valuable consideration,” App. 43, for the property. Factual allegations of interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations and denial of all economically feasible use of the property are certainly sufficient allegations of a regulatory taking to state a cause of action. See, e. g., Penn Central, 438 U. S., at 136-138. Consequently, I would hold that appellant adequately alleged a taking.

IV

The final question presented is whether a State can limit to declaratory and injunctive relief the remedies available to a person whose property has been taken by regulation or whether the State must pay compensation for the interim period between the time that the government first “took” the property and the time that the “taking” is rescinded by amendment of the regulation. On this question, I am again in substantial agreement with Justice Brennan’s discussion in San Diego Gas. See 450 U. S., at 653-660. Even where a property owner is deprived of its property only temporarily, if that deprivation amounts to a taking the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid. If the governmental body that has taken the property decides to rescind the taking by amending the regulation, that does not reverse the fact that the property owner has been deprived of its property in the interim. “[I]t is only fair that the public bear the cost of benefits received during the interim period between application of the regulation and the government entity’s rescission of it.” Id., at 656-657. Thus, just compensation must be available for the period between the time of the final decision taking the property and the time that that decision is rescinded.

I recognize that such a constitutional rule admits of problems of administration that are by no means insignificant. Aside from the problems that the Court has already addressed in some measure regarding the determination of when a taking shall be deemed to have occurred, there are questions of valuation and of procedure. As to the latter, the Constitution requires no particular procedures, although as the Court today notes, “[a] property owner is of course not required to resort to piecemeal litigation or otherwise unfair procedures in order to obtain this determination.” Ante, at 350, n. 7. As to the former, the issue of what constitutes just compensation in this context is a particularly meaty one, which merits substantial reflection and analysis. Nevertheless, these unsettled questions should not deter us from acting to protect constitutional requirements in this type of case. Consequently, I would vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views I have expressed.

V

In sum, I believe that the Court of Appeal’s decision is most properly read as taking as true all of the allegations in the complaint, including the allegations of futility, and as rejecting those allegations as insufficient as a matter of substantive takings law. At the very least, the Court’s reading of the opinion below, however plausible, is not the only sensible reading of that opinion. Given this arguable ambiguity, I would not, as the Court does, withdraw from appellant all chance of relief at this stage. That is, if the Court of Appeal in fact did reach its judgment by the reasoning I have summarized rather than as the Court hypothesizes, appellant should not be precluded from seeking relief on the facts currently alleged in the complaint. I would at least vacate the judgment below and remand for explanation by the Court of Appeal as to the precise basis for its judgment.

Justice Rehnquist,

with whom Justice Powell joins, dissenting.

I agree with Justice White that the Court of Appeal’s opinion is best read as rejecting appellant’s allegations as a matter of substantive takings law; that appellant sufficiently alleged a final decision denying it all beneficial use of its property; that a land use regulation restricting the use of property may amount to a taking; and that the allegations here are sufficient to state a takings claim. Accordingly, I join Parts I, II, and III of his dissenting opinion. As Justice White recognizes in Part IV of his opinion, the questions surrounding what compensation, if any, is due a property owner in the context of “interim” takings are multifaceted and difficult. I would not reach these questions without first permitting the courts below to address them in light of the fact that appellant has sufficiently alleged a taking.

      The Fifth Amendment provides “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Fifth Amendment prohibition applies against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 236, 239, 241 (1897). See also Williamson Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S. 172, 175, n. 1 (1985); San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621, 623, n. 1 (1981).

       “25. In determining that Plaintiff’s land could only be used for agricultural purposes, notwithstanding its general planning and zoning designation for residential use and its suitability therefor, County determined that (i) the Property lacked access by means of suitable public streets, a condition resulting from City’s deliberate refusal to permit or approve available access; (ii) the [Property lacked sanitary sewer service, a condition resulting directly from the wrongful acts of City, County and District above alleged[;] (iii) the Property lacked adequate water supply, a finding directly contrary to the fact (in evidence before County) that there are proven sources of supply on the Property and in the vicinity thereof which serve the immediately adjacent residential areas[;] and (iv) that the Property lacked adequate fire and police services, conditions attributable in part to refusal on part of County and City to provide such services.” App. 51-52.

       In California, “those factual allegations of the complaint which are properly pleaded are deemed admitted by defendant’s demurrer.” Thompson v. County of Alameda, 27 Cal. 3d 741, 746, 614 P. 2d 728, 730 (1980). “However,” a demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged therein.” Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal. 2d 695, 713, 433 P. 2d 732, 745 (1967) (citations omitted). See, e. g., Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 591, 487 P. 2d 1241, 1245 (1971); Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp., 69 Cal. 2d 305, 327, 444 P. 2d 481, 495 (1968); Sych v. Insurance Co. of North America, 173 Cal. App. 3d 321, 326, 220 Cal. Rptr. 692, 695 (1985); Read v. City of Lynwood, 173 Cal. App. 3d 437, 442, 219 Cal. Rptr. 26, 28 (1985). Thus, one intermediate California appellate court has sustained a demurrer to a complaint alleging a regulatory taking on jurisdictional grounds, notwithstanding an “allegation in [appellants’] complaint that they ‘have exhausted their administrative remedies’”; for “while a demurrer admits all material facts which are properly pleaded, it does not admit conclusions of fact or law alleged therein. Appellants’ conclusionary statement that they exhausted their administrative remedies therefore cannot avail them.” Pan Pacific Properties, Inc. v. County of Santa Cruz, 81 Cal. App. 3d 244, 251, 146 Cal. Rptr. 428, 432 (1978) (citation omitted). Cf. Hecton v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation, 58 Cal. App. 3d 653, 657, 130 Cal. Rptr. 230, 232 (1976) (same; allegations of taking and damage).

       We understand the Superior Court to have sustained the demurrer both because the complaint failed properly to plead facts amounting to a taking and because California law does not provide a monetary remedy for a regulatory taking. The Superior Court, after explaining these two reasons, concluded simply that “[t]he complaint fails to state a proper cause of action for inverse condemnation.” App. 116. Although Justice White’s dissent treats the first reason as dicta and the second as the actual basis of decision, see post, at 355-356, since the Superior Court did not rest its holding on only one of its two stated reasons, it is appropriate to treat them as alternative bases of decision.

       In answer to appellant’s 42 U. S. C. § 1983 claim, the California Court of Appeal similarly held that a monetary judgment was foreclosed by Agins, and that “[e]ven if a cause of action for monetary damages could be stated under the Civil Rights Act based upon the regulation of the use of property, the allegations would be insufficient in this case:
      “Plaintiff seeks compensation because the County refused approval of the intensive development it desires, but that refusal does not mean that other, less intensive uses would also be denied. Accordingly plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to establish an uncompensated taking of its property.” App. 135.

       We accept for the purposes of deciding this case that any taking was for a public purpose, as alleged in the complaint. See id., at 50. See also id., at 51, 60.

       A property owner is of course not required to resort to piecemeal litigation or otherwise unfair procedures in order to obtain this determination. See Williamson Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S., at 205-206 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745, 749 (1947).

       Appellant’s current complaint — as authoritatively construed by the California Court of Appeal — alleged the denial of only one intense type of residential development. Appellant does not contend that only improvements along the lines of its 159-home subdivision plan would avert a regulatory taking. Rather, the complaint alleged that appellant was deprived of all beneficial use of its property. See App. 51, 60, 65. The California Court of Appeal, whose opinion on matters of local law and local pleading we must respect, cf. Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 259-260, n. 5 (1980), apparently rejected what the Superior Court labeled a “conclusionary” allegation of futility, and explained that appellant could seek an administrative application of the Yolo County General Plan and Zoning Ordinances to its property which, for aught that appears, would allow development to proceed.
      Justice White’s dissent reluctantly concludes that our understanding of the Court of Appeal’s decision is “plausible” and “sensible,” but insists that the Court of Appeal’s decision is “most properly read as taking as true all of the allegations in the complaint, including the allegations of futility, and as rejecting those allegations as insufficient as a matter of substantive takings law.” Post, at 363. We disagree. Both state courts upheld ap-pellees’ demurrer on the ground that not all development had been foreclosed. Thus, the Superior Court apparently accepted appellant’s submission that its property was restricted to agricultural use but held that, even so, valuable use might still be made of the land. The Court of Appeal was unwilling to concede even this much: it noted that appellant’s property was zoned residential and held that valuable residential development was open to it. These holdings that there is no total prohibition against the productive use of appellant’s land cannot possibly be reconciled with the allegations in the complaint that “any beneficial use” is precluded, App. 46, and that future applications would be futile, id., at 58. In view of the fact that these allegations were necessarily rejected by the state courts, and that the parties’ briefs disclose a permissible basis for this disposition in settled California demurrer law, see n. 3, supra; see also Brief for Respondents in 3 Civil 22306 (Cal. Ct. App., Third App. Dist., July 10, 1984), pp. 25, 27; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer to Fourth Amended Complaint in No. 36655 (Cal. Super. Ct., Yolo County, Dec. 18, 1981), 4 Clerk’s Tr., pp. 888-889, 912, n. 2, 914, it does not matter that the state courts neglected to “expressly disapprove” the deficient allegations or to detail the particular reasons why, see post, at 357.
      Remarkably, the dissent implies that the Court of Appeal accepted the complaint’s allegations that local regulations denied appellant all beneficial use of its property and that further regulatory proceedings would be fruitless, but nonetheless required it to file further “useless” applications to state a taking claim. Ibid. Whatever purpose such a requirement might serve, futile reapplications are not contemplated by the Court of Appeal. To begin with, this requirement is not, as the dissent maintains, suggested by the Court of Appeal’s reliance on the decisions of the California Supreme Court and of this Court in Agins. See App. 132. To the contrary, the Court of Appeal relied on the decisions in Agins to illustrate that the property owners there — as here — had not “attempt[ed] to obtain approval to . . . develop the land” in accordance with applicable zoning regulations and for this reason had “failed to allege facts which would establish an unconstitutional taking of private property.” Id., at 132-133. See 447 U. S., at 259-263; 24 Cal. 3d 266, 277, 598 P. 2d 25, 31 (1979). The implication is not that future applications would be futile, but that a meaningful application has not yet been made. The dissent’s supposition that the Court of Appeal accepted the allegations of taking and futility is further contradicted by the court’s express denial that submission of a less intensive application would be futile: “the refusal of the [appellees] to permit the intensive development desired by the landowner does not preclude less intensive, but still valuable development.” App. 133.

       Appellant is thus in the same position Mr. and Mrs. Agins would have occupied if they had requested and been denied the opportunity to build five Victorian mansions for their single-family residences, or if San Diego Gas & Electric Co. had asked and been denied the option of building a nuclear powerplant. Rejection of exceedingly grandiose development plans does not logically imply that less ambitious plans will receive similarly unfavorable reviews. In this case, of course, we have statements from both courts below dispelling any doubt on this point.

       The Superior Court also sustained the demurrer on the ground that appellant had failed to exhaust administrative and judicial remedies; that the county’s denial of appellant’s subdivision application was res judicata not subject to collateral attack in the Superior Court; and that no taking in the form of actual “invasion or appropriation of a cognizably valuable property right” had been alleged. App. Ill, 116.

       1 emphasize that the futility of further application would have to be proved at trial for appellant to prevail here on the merits. I address only the question whether appellant’s allegations of futility are sufficient support for assuming that a final decision has been made.

       Although the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Agins rests on the rationale that excessive land use regulation simply cannot constitute a lawful taking, the Court of Appeal in this case seemed to proceed on the assumption that such regulation could constitute a taking but that no inverse condemnation remedy for such a taking would be available. See App. 131. My discussion here follows the reasoning given by the California Supreme Court in Agins rather than the somewhat inexact summary of that reasoning given by the Court of Appeal below.

       1 assume here that the normal action by the governmental entity following a determination that a particular regulation constitutes a taking wall be to rescind the regulation. I believe that this is a permissible course of action, limiting liability for the taking to the interim period. See San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621, 658 (1981) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). Of course, the governmental entity could actually condemn the property and pay permanent compensation for it.