In the case of MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo et al., 1985, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a landowner's claim for compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause was not ripe until local planning authorities had made final decisions regarding how they would apply zoning regulations to his property. The plaintiff owned an undeveloped piece of land in California and submitted several proposals for its development which were all rejected by county officials due to non-compliance with zoning ordinances and subdivision standards. The court held that since there was no concrete evidence showing what type or level of development would be permitted on the site, it could not determine whether any taking had occurred. Therefore, it concluded that as long as there is uncertainty about a property’s permissible uses, a takings claim based on regulatory actions affecting real estate is premature.

The dissenting opinion in the case of MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo et al., 1985 argued that the majority's decision failed to properly apply the "ripeness" doctrine and misinterpreted precedent regarding regulatory takings claims. The dissent believed that a property owner should not be required to seek variances from land-use regulations before challenging them as unconstitutional takings, arguing this requirement was inconsistent with prior cases where such challenges were allowed without first seeking variances. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that denying development rights did not constitute a taking if it advanced legitimate state interests; instead, they contended any denial of all economically viable use of property constituted a compensable taking unless justified by background principles of nuisance law or property law.