Land Use, Zoning and Condemnation
|
|
- Anastasia Byrd
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Land Use, Zoning and Condemnation U.S. Supreme Court Separates Due Process Analysis From Federal Takings Claims The 5th Amendment Takings Clause provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Takings Clause does not prohibit the government from acquiring property it merely places a condition on the exercise of that power. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., 125 S. Ct (May 23, 2005). Incorporation of the language for public use presupposes that the government has acted in pursuit of a valid public purpose. Id. Thus, an invalid government action, one that is not pursuing a legitimate public purpose, never arrives at a takings analysis no amount of compensation could authorize such an unjustified and unconstitutional action. Id. This elementary analysis of a takings claim seems overly simplistic. Until the Court decided Lingle, however, that was not the case. Lingle overturned the rule instituted by Agins v. City of Tiburon, an unfortunate holding that commingled two distinct theories of Constitutional law. In Agins, the Court held that an unconstitutional taking results if a government regulation does not substantially advance [a] legitimate state interest. 447 U.S. 255, 260. As a result, for the past 25-years, courts have been forced to analyze a regulatory takings case by first conducting a due process inquiry. As Lingle makes clear, however, a due process analysis has no proper place in takings jurisprudence. 125 S. Ct. at Lingle involved an oil company s challenge of a Hawaiian law that regulated the amount of rent the company could charge its retail fuel dealers. Id. at The regulation was an attempt to drive down the price of gasoline for the State s consumers. Id. The district court, however, concluding that the regulation would not reduce the retail price of gasoline, determined that the statute did not substantially advance the government s interest. Id. Therefore, under the Agins analysis, the court ruled that the State s law resulted in a regulatory taking. Id. at The Ninth Circuit affirmed on the same grounds. Id. The Lingle holding reversed the Agins decision and, in doing so, separated due process analysis from takings jurisprudence. The Court stated that the Agins test was improperly focused on the effectiveness of a government regulation. Instead, the Court held, takings law should be concerned with the magnitude or character of the burden a particular regulation imposes upon private property rights. Id. at The Court denounced the Agins test as an invalid method for identifying regulatory takings. Id. at 2085.
2 Furthermore, to clarify the appropriate takings analysis under a variety of circumstances, the Court reaffirmed the following takings decisions: per se physical invasions of land should be analyzed in accordance with Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982); regulatory takings when a government action completely deprives an owner of all economic benefit of his land should be analyzed in accordance with Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S (1992); other regulatory takings should be analyzed in accordance with Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978); and finally, land-use exactions should be analyzed in accordance with Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). The Lingle decision was long overdue. Its influence, however, is likely minimal. Plaintiffs will simply be forced to separate their due process claims from their takings claims. The validity of a government action should be litigated first; then, if the regulation survives due process analysis, the issue of whether or not the regulation amounts to a taking is ripe for consideration. If a taking has occurred, the property owner is entitled to compensation in accordance with the 5th Amendment Takings Clause. Consideration Of Federal Takings Claims To Remain In State Courts for now. In a peculiar decision handed down 20-years ago, the Supreme Court held that private plaintiffs alleging a 5th Amendment takings violation against a state agency must fully litigate their claims in state court before proceeding at the federal level. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). According to the Court, takings claims are not ripe until a state fails to provide adequate compensation for the taking. Id. at 195. This unusual and often criticized rule of law was the subject of argument in San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco, 125 S. Ct (June 20, 2005). In San Remo Hotel, the plaintiff hotel owners sought to challenge a city ordinance that required them to pay a steep penalty for converting their residential hotel units to tourist units. Id. at The plaintiffs originally filed their takings claims in Federal District Court. The District Court granted the city s summary judgment motion, however, because the facial challenge to the regulation was time barred by the statute of limitations, and the as-applied challenge was deemed unripe pursuant to the holding in Williamson. Id. at According to the Court, the hotel owners would have to receive a final judgment from the state courts before their claims would be fit for federal review. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the takings claims were unripe for resolution, and the case was sent back to state court.
3 At the state level, the hotel owners were unable to prevail on their takings claims. As a result, they once again raised a series of takings claims in Federal District Court. Id. The claims, however, were identical to those that had just been resolved in state court. Id. The District Court dismissed the case based on principles of claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel). See 28 U.S.C The Court held that it was required to give full faith and credit to the state courts decisions. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed, and the case was dismissed. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that the rule established in Williamson is flawed because plaintiffs alleging federal takings claims are required to proceed in state court without any realistic possibility of ever obtaining review in a federal forum. Id. Therefore, in light of Williamson, the plaintiffs were asking the Court to implement an exception to the full faith and credit clause as it pertains to takings claims. They were asking for a rule that would allow federal courts to review such claims de novo following the corresponding state court s final disposition, regardless of what issues the state court may have decided or how it may have decided them. Id. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower appellate courts. In accordance with Williamson, the Court held that parties should not relitigate issues that have already been resolved by courts of competent jurisdiction. Id. at Furthermore, the Court reminded the plaintiffs that an exception to the traditional rules of preclusion could only be justified if plainly stated by Congress. Id. Therefore, it is not within the Court s power to implement an exception to the full faith and credit clause. Id. In a concurring opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, however, the legitimacy of the Williamson decision was questioned. Id. at 2507 (concurring opinion; Justice O Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas joined in concurring). More specifically, Justice Rehnquist questioned the Court s decision two-decades ago to hand authority over federal takings claims to state courts simply because they are familiar with local land-use decisions. Id. at Furthermore, he clearly stated that a challenge to the Williamson holding is ripe for consideration. Id. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs in San Remo, they did not address the correctness of Williamson. Instead, they focused their arguments on potential exceptions to the full faith and credit clause. The immediate effect of San Remo will likely be minimal. It does suggest that litigants who go to state court to seek compensation will likely be unable later to assert their federal takings claims in federal court. Id. What the opinion does accomplish, however, is it brings the anomalies created by Williamson back to the attention of the Court. As a result of Justice Rehnquist s concurring opinion, a new challenge to the 20-year-old holding is likely to surface in the near future.
4 U.S. Supreme Court Gives Local Governments Broad Discretion In Determining What Justifies A 5th Amendment Taking Of Private Property In a decision that will likely change the way developers and local governmental authorities work together to promote economic redevelopment projects, the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London reaffirmed its traditional stance of affording [state] legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the [5th Amendment] takings power. 545 U.S., No , 2005 LEXIS 5011 (2005). The dispute in Kelo centered on a local government s decision to pursue an economic development plan by condemning private property, exercising eminent domain, and then transferring the property to private developers for economic revitalization. The city of New London, Connecticut has been experiencing a long period of economic decline for decades. As a result, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private, nonprofit organization, presented a plan to redevelop 90-acres within the depressed area to members of city council. Impressed by the plan s apparent ability to create jobs and generate tax revenue, the council members authorized the NLDC s purchase of the planned property by exercising eminent domain in the city s name. The NLDC was able to purchase much of the required land without resorting to eminent domain tactics. Some property owners, however, refused to negotiate a sale. As a result, NLDC initiated condemnation proceedings, and the Kelo litigation ensued. Even though none of the properties at issue were blighted, the Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed a New London Superior Court decision and held that all of the City s takings were valid. Relying on a Connecticut development statute, which suggests that the taking of property to advance economic development is a public use taking, the Court gave deference to city council s redevelopment plan and accepted its assessment. At the Supreme Court, the dissenters strongly suggested that using eminent domain in such a manner constitutes an unconstitutional taking. The majority, however, held that economic development satisfies the public use requirement stipulated under the 5th Amendment. The Court acknowledged that promoting economic development is a traditional long accepted function of governments. Id. at 14. More importantly, it held that a private enterprise may assist a government agency in the redevelopment process, and even benefit from the relationship, so long as the plan benefits the community. Id. at 15. As for New London specifically, the majority determined that the City of New London acquired the property in question pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, not in an effort to benefit a particular class of private individuals. Thus, the taking was justified under the 5th Amendment.
5 The controversial decision greatly increases the likelihood that developers and local governments can successfully utilize eminent domain, where appropriate, to further public/private economic development projects. In light of Kelo, when a local government determines that the use of eminent domain will promote development and will serve a public purpose, the courts will likely defer and uphold the plan as constitutional. The landmark Kelo decision set off a firestorm of political debate in both the state and federal legislatures. According to the National Law Journal 1, as many as 28-states have considered legislation to curb eminent domain in light of Kelo. In several states, including Michigan, legislators are pushing for state constitutional amendments prohibiting eminent domain for private development. In several others, proposed bills would simply limit the use of eminent domain by implementing stringent procedures requisite to acquiring land. On November 16, 2005, Ohio Governor Bob Taft signed an eminent domain moratorium into law that will last until December 31, The moratorium, which was effective immediately, prevents government officials from taking private property in Ohio s nonblighted areas for the purpose of economic development. Furthermore, the moratorium establishes a task force that is charged with thoroughly examining Ohio s eminent domain laws over the course of the next year. Ohio s moratorium does not affect ongoing eminent domain proceedings that were initiated prior to its passing. The federal government has also been pro-active in its response. On June 24, the House passed a resolution that summarized its distaste with the Kelo decision. Furthermore, several bills introduced in both branches of Congress seek to suspend federal development assistance to states that acquire land for private development through the use of eminent domain. On September 20, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss these issues. All signs point to the enactment of federal law in the near future. Thus, while municipalities and developers across the country continue to take advantage of Kelo s holding, a rapid political movement could ultimately diminish the effect of eminent domain takings. 1 Tresa Baldas, States ride post- Kelo wave of legislation; Eminent domain curbs in 28 states, The National Law Journal, August 1, 2005, P1 Vol. 27, No. 46
6 THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT To contact us, please write to: Frost Brown Todd LLC 2200 PNC Center 201 East 5th St. Cincinnati, OH OR Frost Brown Todd LLC 400 West Market St. 32nd Fl. Louisville, KY
Kelo, Lingle, and San Remo Hotel: Takings Law Now Belongs to the States
Berkeley Law Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2005 Kelo, Lingle, and San Remo Hotel: Takings Law Now Belongs to the States William A. Fletcher Berkeley Law Follow this and additional
More informationFriday Session: 8:45 10:15 am
The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute Friday Session: 8:45 10:15 am Takings: Lingle v. Chevron and the Future of Regulatory Takings in Land Use Law 8:45 10:15 a.m. Friday, March 10, 2006 Sturm College
More informationAICP EXAM PREPARATION Planning Law Concepts Review
AICP EXAM PREPARATION Planning Law Concepts Review Prepared By: Christopher J. Smith, Esq. Shipman & Goodwin LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 251-5606 cjsmith@goodwin.com Christopher
More informationA CLOUD ON EVERY DECISION : NOLLAN/DOLAN AND LEGISLATIVE EXACTIONS
A CLOUD ON EVERY DECISION : NOLLAN/DOLAN AND LEGISLATIVE EXACTIONS presented at LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2018 Annual Conference & Expo City Attorneys Track Friday, September 14, 2018, 8:00 a.m. 10:00
More informationHighlands Takings Resources
Highlands Takings Resources Recent calls for landowner compensation continue to be heard throughout the Highlands region and in Trenton. Advocates of landowner compensation argue that any property right
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 560 U. S. (2010) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 08 1151 STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC., PETITIONER v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationAICP Exam Review: Planning and Land Use Law
AICP Exam Review: Planning and Land Use Law February 7, 2014 David C. Kirk, FAICP Troutman Sanders LLP After all, a policeman must know the Constitution, then why not a planner? San Diego Gas & Electric
More informationZoning and Land Use Planning
Alan C. Weinstein* and Brian W. Blaesser** The Supreme Court's 2012 Takings Cases The U.S. Supreme Court has three cases on its docket this term that explore the meaning of the fth amendment's prohibition
More informationREGULATORY TAKINGS: WHAT DID PENN CENTRAL HOLD? THREE DECADES OF SUPREME COURT EXPLANATION I. INTRODUCTION
REGULATORY TAKINGS: WHAT DID PENN CENTRAL HOLD? THREE DECADES OF SUPREME COURT EXPLANATION TIPTON F. MCCUBBINS* I. INTRODUCTION Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City 1 is the pivotal case in
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WEST LINN CORPORATE PARK L.L.C., v. Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 05-36061
More informationRob McKenna Attorney General. Advisory Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property
Rob McKenna Attorney General Advisory Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property December 2006 Prepared by: Michael S. Grossmann, Senior Counsel Alan D. Copsey, Assistant Attorney
More informationKoontz v. St Johns Water Management District
Koontz v. St Johns Water Management District New England Housing Network Annual Conference John Echeverria Vermont Law School December 6, 2013 What s a Taking? Nor shall private property be taken for public
More information3Jn tlje ~upreme QCourt of tlje Wntteb ~tat~
No.14-275 3Jn tlje ~upreme QCourt of tlje Wntteb ~tat~ MARVIN D. HORNE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
More informationSTEALING YOUR PROPERTY OR PAYING YOU FOR OBEYING THE LAW? TAKINGS EXACTIONS AFTER KOONTZ v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
STEALING YOUR PROPERTY OR PAYING YOU FOR OBEYING THE LAW? TAKINGS EXACTIONS AFTER KOONTZ v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT American College of Real Estate Lawyers Spring Meeting Kauai, HI March
More informationNova Law Review. Bradley C. Davis. Volume 30, Issue Article 7
Nova Law Review Volume 30, Issue 3 2006 Article 7 Substantially Advancing Penn Central: Sharpening the Remaining Arrow in the Property Advocate s Quiver for the New Age of Regulatory Takings Bradley C.
More informationUnresolved Issues in Regulatory Takings and the Protection of Private Property Rights
Unresolved Issues in Regulatory Takings and the Protection of Private Property Rights By Steven J. Eagle* I. Overview. A. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. (2005) Summarizes Regulatory Takings... Although regulatory
More informationProperty Taking, Types and Analysis
Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series Property Taking, Types and Analysis Original version: January 6, 2014 Last revised: January 6, 2014 If you do not give me the zoning permit, I'll sue
More informationSupreme Court Takings Decisions: Koontz v. St. Johns Water River Management District. Carolyn Detmer
Supreme Court Takings Decisions: Koontz v. St. Johns Water River Management District Carolyn Detmer Introduction Last summer, the Supreme Court decided three cases centered on takings issues. Of the three,
More informationLand Use Series. Property Taking, Types and Analysis. January 6, Bringing Knowledge to Life!
Land Use Series Bringing Knowledge to Life! Thirty seven million acres is all the Michigan we will ever have. Former Governor W illiam G. Milliken Michigan State University Extension, Greening Michigan
More informationThe Public Servant. Koontz Decision Extends Property Owners Constitutional Protections. Continued on page 2
Published by the Government & Public Sector Section of the North Carolina Bar Association Section Vol. 25, No. 1 October 2013 Koontz Decision Extends Property Owners Constitutional Protections U.S. Supreme
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 28055 KMST, LLC., an Idaho limited liability company, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, COUNTY OF ADA, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, and Defendant,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-275 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë MARVIN D. HORNE, et al., v. Petitioners, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Ë Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 08-497 In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- --------------------------- AMERISOURCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, --------------------------
More informationManta Dircks, Rhode Island Sea Grant Law Fellow December 2016
Takings Liability and Coastal Management in Rhode Island Manta Dircks, Rhode Island Sea Grant Law Fellow December 2016 The takings clauses of the federal and state constitutions provide an important basis
More informationThe Land Use Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Stevens: Two Views on Balancing Public and Private Interests in Property
ENVIRONS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY JOURNAL UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW VOLUME 34 FALL 2010 NUMBER 1 The Land Use Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Stevens: Two Views on
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 30, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-963 Lower Tribunal No. 04-21282 Ann Teitelbaum,
More informationMULTIJURISDICTIONALITY AND FEDERALISM: ASSESSING SAN REMO HOTEL S EFFECT ON REGULATORY TAKINGS
MULTIJURISDICTIONALITY AND FEDERALISM: ASSESSING SAN REMO HOTEL S EFFECT ON REGULATORY TAKINGS Eric A. Lindberg * Regulatory takings plaintiffs will increasingly litigate their cases in state court after
More informationNo In the COY A. KOONTZ, JR., ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
Supreme Court, U.S. FILED AUG 1 4 2012 No. 11-1447 OFFICE OF THE CLERK In the 6upreme Court of tbe nitcb 'tat COY A. KOONTZ, JR., Petitioner, V. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Respondent. On
More informationNO In the Supreme Court of the United States. SAN REMO HOTEL L.P., THOMAS FIELD, ROBERT FIELD, AND T&R INVESTMENT CORP.
NO. 04-340 In the Supreme Court of the United States SAN REMO HOTEL L.P., THOMAS FIELD, ROBERT FIELD, AND T&R INVESTMENT CORP., Petitioners, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationTahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 122 S. Ct (2002)
Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law Volume 11 Issue 2 Article 30 2003 Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 122 S. Ct. 1465 (2002) Mary Ernesti Follow this and
More informationNo ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
No. 11-597 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationCase 3:15-cv VC Document 72 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 3:15-cv-03392-VC Document 72 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION BAY AREA, v. Plaintiff, CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant.
More informationNEW YORK UNIVERSITY WAGNER GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE
Course Overview NEW YORK UNIVERSITY WAGNER GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE Land Use Law: The Planning Perspective URPL-GP.1605(002) Professor Mark A. Levine Professor Wesley O Brien Syllabus Spring 2014
More informationCITE THIS READING MATERIAL AS:
CITE THIS READING MATERIAL AS: Realty Publications, Inc. Legal Aspects of Real Estate Sixth Edition California real estate law Chapter1: California real estate law 1 Chapter 1 After reading this chapter,
More informationTHE AFTERMATH OF KOONTZ AND CONDITIONAL DEMANDS: A PER SE TEST, PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND A CONDITIONAL DEMAND
THE AFTERMATH OF KOONTZ AND CONDITIONAL DEMANDS: A PER SE TEST, PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND A CONDITIONAL DEMAND JAMES E. HOLLOWAY* DONALD C. GUY** I. INTRODUCTION Standards of review that scrutinize takings
More informationPlanning Ahead: Consistency with a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Yields Consistent Results for Municipalities
Oklahoma Law Review Volume 60 Number 1 2007 Planning Ahead: Consistency with a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Yields Consistent Results for Municipalities Nathan Blackburn Follow this and additional works
More informationCase 2:17-cv SJM-MKM ECF No. 13 filed 02/07/18 PageID.794 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-13428-SJM-MKM ECF No. 13 filed 02/07/18 PageID.794 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LYNN LUMBARD, et al., v. Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:17-cv-13428
More informationBRIEFING FOR CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS Presented by the Housing and Development Law Institute June 23, 2006
BRIEFING FOR CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS Presented by the Housing and Development Law Institute June 23, 2006 A FEW WORDS ABOUT HDLI The Housing and Development Law Institute (HDLI) is a twenty-two-year-old
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 0 MARION SKORO, ) ) No. CV 0--HU Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) THE CITY OF PORTLAND, a ) municipal corporation ) of the State of
More informationDocument received by the TN Court of Appeals.
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... iii STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES...1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE...1 FACTS...1 ARGUMENT...3 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW...3 II. THIS CASE IS MOOT, NOW THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 529 U. S. (2000) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CLAUDE LAMBERT ET UX. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA,
More informationKoontz Decision Extends Property Owners Constitutional Protections
Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Practice Number 1560 July 17, 2013 Koontz Decision Extends Property Owners Constitutional Protections US Supreme Court decision requires more government exactions
More informationKoontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District New England Housing Network Annual Conference December 6, 2013 Dwight Merriam, FAICP Robinson & Cole LLP You know the drill, these are my personal observations
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 07-635 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë BRUCE PETERS, v. Petitioner, VILLAGE OF CLIFTON, an Illinois municipal corporation; ALEXANDER, COX & McTAGGERT, INC.; and JOSEPH McTAGGERT, Ë Respondents.
More informationPHILOSOPHY OF LAND USE REGULATIONS: SETTING THE STAGE
City Attorneys Department League of California Cities Annual Conference October 1997 Daniel J. Curtin, Jr. Attorney at Law PHILOSOPHY OF LAND USE REGULATIONS: SETTING THE STAGE I. OVERVIEW A. Police Power.
More informationBook Review [Grand Theft and the Petit Larcency: Property Rights in America]
Santa Clara Law Review Volume 34 Number 3 Article 7 1-1-1994 Book Review [Grand Theft and the Petit Larcency: Property Rights in America] Santa Clara Law Review Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-918 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ESTATE OF E. WAYNE
More informationRaisin' Contentions: A Farmer's Grapes of Wrath and the Ninth Circuit's Questionable Takings Analysis in Horne v. U.S. Dept.
Volume 26 Issue 2 Article 6 11-1-2015 Raisin' Contentions: A Farmer's Grapes of Wrath and the Ninth Circuit's Questionable Takings Analysis in Horne v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Drew S. McGehrin Follow
More informationNo Ou,preme Court of the Iluiteb 'tate
No. 11-189 In the Ou,preme Court of the Iluiteb 'tate COLONY COVE PROPERTIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Petitioner, V. CITY OF CARSON, a municipal corporation; and CITY OF CARSON MOBILEHOME
More informationSupreme Court of the United States BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS
No. 11-338 In The Supreme Court of the United States DOUG DECKER, et al., v. Petitioners, NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, et al., Respondents. BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
More informationIn Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional
The Supreme Court s Evolving Takings Jurisprudence: A First Look at Tahoe-Sierra By Steven J. Eagle Andrew O. Alcala/Lake Tahoe image by Corbis In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning
More informationJUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division II Opinion by: JUDGE CONNELLY Taubman and Carparelli, JJ., concur. Announced: November 13, 2008
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 07CA2184 El Paso County District Court No. 06CV4394 Honorable David S. Prince, Judge Wolf Ranch, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Petitioner-Appellant
More informationNo. In The Supreme Court of the United States
No. In The Supreme Court of the United States ROSE MARY KNICK, Petitioner, v. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT; CARL S. FERRARO, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Scott Township Code Enforcement Officer, Respondents.
More informationANTONIN SCALIA S FLAWED TAKINGS LEGACY
ANTONIN SCALIA S FLAWED TAKINGS LEGACY John D. Echeverria * INTRODUCTION... 689 I. JUSTICE SCALIA S TAKINGS WORK... 691 II. AGINS V. CITY OF TIBURON: SCALIA S TAKINGS ROSETTA STONE... 694 III. SCALIA S
More information2 of 2 DOCUMENTS. CACERF NORCO, LLC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF NORCO et al., Defendants E055486
Page 29 2 of 2 DOCUMENTS CACERF NORCO, LLC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF NORCO et al., Defendants and Respondents. E055486 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
More informationTHE STATUS OF NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AND DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD AFTER LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.
THE STATUS OF NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AND DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD AFTER LINGLE V. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. DAVID L. CALLIES* AND CHRISTOPHER T. GOODIN** I. INTRODUCTION In Agins v. City of
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1137 In the Supreme Court of the United States 616 CROFT AVE., LLC, and JONATHAN & SHELAH LEHRER-GRAIWER, Petitioners, v. CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States STAR NORTHWEST, INC., a Washington corporation d/b/a Kenmore Lanes and 11 th Frame Restaurant & Lounge, Petitioner, v. CITY OF KENMORE, a Washington municipal
More informationLockary et al., v. Kayfetz et al. 917 F.2d 1150 (9 th Cir. 1990) I. Statement of Facts and Proceedings
Chapter 5 - Prior Appropriation E. Appropriation of Dormant Riparian Rights Lockary et al., v. Kayfetz et al. 917 F.2d 1150 (9 th Cir. 1990) [Landowners sued community public utility district and others,
More informationTHE PATH OUT OF WASHINGTON S TAKINGS QUAGMIRE: THE CASE FOR ADOPTING THE FEDERAL TAKINGS ANALYSIS
Copyright 2011 by Washington Law Review Association THE PATH OUT OF WASHINGTON S TAKINGS QUAGMIRE: THE CASE FOR ADOPTING THE FEDERAL TAKINGS ANALYSIS Roger D. Wynne Abstract: A quagmire awaits anyone attempting
More informationNOLLAN v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (1987)
NOLLAN v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (1987) PRIVATE PROPERTY DIRECTIONS Read the Case Background and. Then analyze the Documents provided. Finally, answer the in a well-organized essay that incorporates
More informationJAMES E. HOLLOWAY ** & DONALD C. GUY ***
EXTENDING REGULATORY TAKINGS THEORY BY APPLYING CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE AND ELEVATING TAKINGS PRECEDENTS TO JUSTIFY HIGHER STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN KOONTZ * JAMES E. HOLLOWAY ** & DONALD C. GUY *** The Roberts
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:12-cv-00626-JMM Document 10 Filed 09/24/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRED J. ROBBINS, JR. and : No. 3:12cv626 MARY ROBBINS, : Plaintiffs
More informationMontana Supreme Court Unnecessarily Misconstrues Takings Law
Montana Law Review Volume 55 Issue 2 Summer 1994 Article 10 July 1994 Montana Supreme Court Unnecessarily Misconstrues Takings Law John L. Horwich Professor of Law, University of Montana Hertha L. Lund
More informationNatural Resources Journal
Natural Resources Journal 33 Nat Resources J. 4 (Wildlife Law and Policy Issues) Fall 1993 The Lucas Decision: Implication for Mining Law Reform Casenote Nancy Greif Recommended Citation Nancy Greif, The
More informationTakings Law and the Regulatory State: A Response to R.S. Radford
Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 1995 Takings Law and the Regulatory State: A Response to R.S. Radford William Michael Treanor Georgetown University Law Center, wtreanor@law.georgetown.edu
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WHITE LAKE, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 21, 2013 v No. 305294 Oakland Circuit Court AZAC HOLDINGS, L.L.C., LC No.
More informationConstruing the Canon: An Exegesis of Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence After Lingle v. Chevron
Campbell University School of Law From the SelectedWorks of Michael B. Kent Jr. 2008 Construing the Canon: An Exegesis of Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence After Lingle v. Chevron Michael B. Kent, Jr.,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 14-3189, Document 78-1, 06/04/2015, 1524459, Page1 of 4 14-3189-cv Dutrow v. New York State Gaming Commission UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY
More informationLINGLE S LEGACY: UNTANGLING SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS FROM TAKINGS DOCTRINE
LINGLE S LEGACY: UNTANGLING SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS FROM TAKINGS DOCTRINE Robert G. Dreher * This Article examines the importance of the Supreme Court s recent decision in Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
More informationThe Fifth Amendment holds that government
JANUARY 2002 The Obstacle Course of the Takings Clause by Timothy Sandefur The Fifth Amendment holds that government may not take private property... for public use without just compensation. The Framers
More informationDYING ON THE VINE: HOW A RETHINKING OF WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION AND TAKINGS REMEDIES UNDERCUTS WILLIAMSON COUNTY S RIPENESS DOCTRINE
DYING ON THE VINE: HOW A RETHINKING OF WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION AND TAKINGS REMEDIES UNDERCUTS WILLIAMSON COUNTY S RIPENESS DOCTRINE J. David Breemer * INTRODUCTION... 62 I. TAKINGS DAMAGES AND THE STATE
More informationOrder for the Courts: Reforming the Nollan/Dolan Threshold Inquiry for Exactions
Order for the Courts: Reforming the Nollan/Dolan Threshold Inquiry for Exactions Winfield B. Martin * I. INTRODUCTION For decades prior to 2005, 1 Fifth Amendment regulatory takings jurisprudence languished
More informationNEW YORK UNIVERSITY WAGNER GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY WAGNER GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE Land Use Law: The Planning Perspective URPL-GP.1605 (001) Professor Mark A. Levine Teaching Assistant: Tricia Dietz Syllabus Spring 2016 Course
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-1352 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë CCA ASSOCIATES, v. UNITED STATES, Ë Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
More informationEMINENT DOMAIN TRENDS IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. Presented to the Eminent Domain Conference Sponsored by CLE International. Mike Stafford Kate David
EMINENT DOMAIN TRENDS IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT Presented to the Eminent Domain Conference Sponsored by CLE International Mike Stafford Kate David Eminent Domain Trends in the Texas Supreme Court By Mike
More informationSIGN AMORTIZATION LAWS: INSIGHT INTO PRECEDENT, PROPERTY, AND PUBLIC POLICY STEPHEN DURDEN * INTRODUCTION
SIGN AMORTIZATION LAWS: INSIGHT INTO PRECEDENT, PROPERTY, AND PUBLIC POLICY STEPHEN DURDEN * INTRODUCTION When cities or counties enact zoning regulations, they seek to create a better city by regulating
More informationCourt of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER Roger Groman v Nolan's Auction Service LLC Docket No. 334895 Stephen L. Borrello Presiding Judge David H. Sawyer LC No. 15-048562-A V Kathleen Jansen Judges The
More informationCITY OF TRACY Office of the City Attorney 325 East Tenth Street Tracy, CA fax
CITY OF TRACY Office of the City Attorney 325 East Tenth Street Tracy, CA 95376 209-831-4050 209-831-4153 fax attorney@ci.tracy.ca.us City Attorney's Department Spring Conference League of California Cities
More informationTEMPORARY TAKINGS: SETTLED PRINCIPLES AND UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS
TEMPORARY TAKINGS: SETTLED PRINCIPLES AND UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS Daniel L. Siegel & Robert Meltz TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 480 I. Temporary Regulatory Actions... 482 A. Prospectively Temporary Regulations...
More informationPatentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change Law360,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1137 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States 616 CROFT AVE., LLC, AND JONATHAN & SHELAH LEHRER-GRAIWER, Petitioners, v. CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to
More informationMARGARET W. ROSEQUIST
MARGARET W. ROSEQUIST Margaret (Meg) Rosequist is a member of Meyers Nave s First Amendment Practice Group and Trial and Litigation Practice Group. Her practice focuses on both litigation and advisory
More informationEnvironmental Set-Asides and the Whole Parcel Rule
Environmental Set-Asides and the Whole Parcel Rule S415 Deborah M. Rosenthal, AICP S. Keith Garner, AICP APA s 2012 National Planning Conference Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 2011 Key Learning
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No: SC Lower Tribunal No: 5D ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No: SC09-713 Lower Tribunal No: 5D06-1116 ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, vs. COY A. KOONTZ, ETC., Respondent. PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-275 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë MARVIN D. HORNE, et al., v. Petitioners, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Ë Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
More informationThe Revival of Due Process Rights in Redevelopment Takings: Recent Developments in Due Process in State Eminent Domain Case Law
581 The Revival of Due Process Rights in Redevelopment Takings: Recent Developments in Due Process in State Eminent Domain Case Law Richard P. De Angelis, Jr.* Cory K. Kestner** The power to acquire private
More informationPage 1 of 12 Home 147 F3d 802 Garneau v. City of Seattle 147 F.3d 802 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3296, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4562 Faye GARNEAU, Edward Garneau, Robert Klepinger, Nicolas Fedan, Richard Ju,
More informationLEGAL ISSUES FOR REDISTRICTING IN INDIANA
LEGAL ISSUES FOR REDISTRICTING IN INDIANA By: Brian C. Bosma http://www.kgrlaw.com/bios/bosma.php William Bock, III http://www.kgrlaw.com/bios/bock.php KROGER GARDIS & REGAS, LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite
More informationE&R Enterprise LLC v. City of Rehoboth Beach
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-1-2016 E&R Enterprise LLC v. City of Rehoboth Beach Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationCHAPTER THIRTEEN DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM
CHAPTER THIRTEEN DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM This chapter discusses the various components of the AEDPA deference statute, including... The meaning of the term merits adjudication, The clearly established
More informationHorne v. United States Department of Agriculture: The Takings Clause and the Administrative State By Brian T. Hodges* & Christopher M.
Horne v. United States Department of Agriculture: The Takings Clause and the Administrative State By Brian T. Hodges* & Christopher M. Kieser** Note from the Editor: This article discusses and praises
More informationNollan and Dolan: The End of Municipal Land Use Extortion - A California Perspective
Santa Clara Law Review Volume 36 Number 2 Article 14 1-1-1996 Nollan and Dolan: The End of Municipal Land Use Extortion - A California Perspective Jason R. Biggs Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-1125 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DANIEL GUGGENHEIM, SUSAN GUGGENHEIM, MAUREEN H. PIERCE, Petitioners, v. CITY OF GOLETA, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationThe Takings Clause: The Fifth Amendment
The Takings Clause: The Fifth Amendment Regulation as Taking Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon Balancing Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York Economic Use Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council Regulation
More informationPublic Law for Public Lawyers. Case law Update: Kirby v. NCDOT. David Owens School of Government University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Public Law for Public Lawyers Case law Update: Kirby v. NCDOT David Owens School of Government University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill I. Overview of Regulatory Takings Case Law A. U. S. Cases The
More informationRipeness for the Taking Clause: Finality and Exhaustion in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City
Ecology Law Quarterly Volume 13 Issue 3 Article 7 September 1986 Ripeness for the Taking Clause: Finality and Exhaustion in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City
More informationMark Fenster, Failed Exactions, 36 Vt. L. Rev. 623 (2012), available at
University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-11-2012 Failed Exactions Mark Fenster University of Florida Levin College of Law, fenster@law.ufl.edu
More information