context: . Even had the trial court expressly found a physical and not a regulatory taking had occurred, this would be a conclusion of law subject to our de novo review.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 395 F.3d 1114, 1122
citation_a.parenthetical: summary judgment ruling that no regulatory taking occurred subject to de novo review
citation_a.sentence: See Mutschler v. City of Phoenix, 212 Ariz. 160, ¶¶ 8-9, 129 P.3d 71, 73 (App.2006) (reviewing de novo trial court's summary judgment on issue of taking); see also Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir.2005) (summary judgment ruling that no regulatory taking occurred subject to de novo review); City of Sherman v. Wayne, 266 S.W.3d 34, 46 (Tex.App.2008) (whether taking occurred ultimately question of law).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 129 P.3d 71, 73
citation_b.parenthetical: reviewing de novo trial court's summary judgment on issue of taking
citation_b.sentence: See Mutschler v. City of Phoenix, 212 Ariz. 160, ¶¶ 8-9, 129 P.3d 71, 73 (App.2006) (reviewing de novo trial court's summary judgment on issue of taking); see also Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir.2005) (summary judgment ruling that no regulatory taking occurred subject to de novo review); City of Sherman v. Wayne, 266 S.W.3d 34, 46 (Tex.App.2008) (whether taking occurred ultimately question of law).