News & Analysis as of

Takings Clause

Nossaman LLP

Development Plans and Permitting Efforts Help Ripen Regulatory Takings Claims

Nossaman LLP on

Investors and developers scour the Southern California real estate market searching for opportunities to buy dated houses that they can demolish and replace with large, modern homes to sell for much more.  A few individuals...more

Winstead PC

Come & Take It: The Eminent Domain Podcast (Episode #13), Featuring Winstead Shareholder Tom Forestier

Winstead PC on

Tune in to the latest episode of "Come and Take It: The Eminent Domain Podcast." Host Bobby Debelak sits down with Winstead Shareholder Thomas J. Forestier, a leading infrastructure and eminent domain attorney with 37+ years...more

Roetzel & Andress

Ohio Court Defines When Property Owner in Eminent Domain Case Can Pursue Appeal

Roetzel & Andress on

For the past several years, the hot topic in Ohio eminent domain law has been the ability of a property owner to challenge a taking based on whether it is necessary for a public purpose, or if the appropriating authority...more

Nossaman LLP

Development Conditions Requiring Off-Site Property Acquisitions Not Subject to Takings Law?

Nossaman LLP on

We’ve reported in the past that public agencies are more frequently demanding certain off-site public improvements to accommodate proposed private developments as a condition of entitlement approval.  These can range from...more

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Rules in Favor of Landowners in Eminent Domain Claim

On August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a ruling in Wolfe v. Reading Blue Mountain & Northern RR Co. The Court overturned the Commonwealth Court’s determination that a condemnation of private land by a...more

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Reacting to Tyler v. Hennepin County: Nebraska Supreme Court Imposes Liability on Investors

On Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued its opinions in Fair v. Continental Resources, No. S-21-074, and Nieveen v. TAX 106, No. S-21-364, following remand from the United States Supreme Court in the wake of Tyler v....more

Roetzel & Andress

Ohio Court Rules Property Owner Can Recover Attorney Fees When Eminent Domain Case Is Dismissed by the Taking Authority

Roetzel & Andress on

In the case of N. Ridgeville v. Zilka, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 23CA012047, 2024-Ohio-2468, Ohio’s Ninth District Court of Appeals addressed the ability of a property owner in an eminent domain action to recover attorney fees...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

Navigating Property Nuisance Litigation: Lessons from Satcher v. Columbia County on Injunctive Relief and Damage Awards

Womble Bond Dickinson on

In litigation underlying Satcher v. Columbia County, 2024 WL 3802370 (Ga. Aug. 13, 2024), property owners sued the County related to damage caused by their privately-owned 48-inch pipe that had been used as part of the...more

Jenner & Block

Client Alert: Federal Circuit Issues Important Takings Decision on Eviction Moratorium

Jenner & Block on

In a significant Takings Clause opinion, Darby Development Company, Inc. v. United States, the Federal Circuit sided with landlords who argued that the CDC’s eviction moratorium constituted a physical taking of their...more

DarrowEverett LLP

Land Use Challenges Showcase What’s There for the ‘Taking’

DarrowEverett LLP on

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just...more

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Reacting to Tyler v. Hennepin County: Michigan Addresses Retroactivity of Legislative Fix

In a recent case, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion in Schafer v. Kent County, No. 164975, addressing the critical issue of surplus equity stemming from a tax foreclosure within the context of the state...more

Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass

Supreme Court Impact Fee Decision Creates Opportunities for Developers and Property Owners

On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that may significantly affect how development impact fees are assessed in California. In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the Court unanimously held that...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Permit Conditions and Impact Fees Subject of Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Holland & Knight LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court in April 2024 issued a unanimous decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (144 S. Ct. 893), concluding that the "Takings Clause" in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to...more

Stoel Rives -  Ahead of Schedule

The United States Supreme Court Determines There Is No Distinction Between Legislative and Administrative Takings

In a typical permitting process, the local government may place certain conditions on issuing a building permit to further a legitimate public purpose.  While the local government has “substantial authority to regulate land...more

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: The Supreme Court's Latest Restraint on Development Fees

On April 12, 2024, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, 601 U.S. 267, 144 S. Ct. 893 (2024). Sheetz concerned El Dorado County's imposition of...more

Oliva Gibbs LLP

Third Time’s a Charm: Ohio Supreme Court Remands Case for Failing to Follow Instructions

Oliva Gibbs LLP on

In August 2016, AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C., AWMS Holdings L.L.C., and AWMS Rt. 169, L.L.C. (collectively, “Appellants”) filed their original writ of mandamus to commence property-appropriation proceedings since, in their...more

Polsinelli

SCOTUS Decision May Limit Municipalities’ Ability to Collect Impact Fees

Polsinelli on

In April, the Supreme Court held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California that the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution applies to legislative land-use conditions, such as impact fees. This will result in...more

Robinson+Cole Data Privacy + Security Insider

Privacy Tip #397 – TikTok and ByteDance File Suit Against the United States

As threatened, TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd., the owner of the TikTok app, filed suit against the United States on May 7, 2024, alleging that the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act...more

Downey Brand LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Legislatively-imposed Permit Conditions Must Satisfy the ‘Essential Nexus’ and ‘Rough...

Downey Brand LLP on

In a highly-anticipated case revolving around development impact fees, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 144 S.Ct. 893 (2024) that legislatively-imposed conditions on building permits...more

Cozen O'Connor

U.S. Supreme Court Revisits the Right of Local Government to Exact Permit Conditions from Developers

Cozen O'Connor on

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has again rejected a state's narrow interpretation of the constitutional limits on government's ability to impose development conditions. A unanimous SCOTUS ruled on April 12 in favor of the...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

U.S. Passes Social Media and Data Broker Bills Targeting Data Use Practices

As part of the national security supplemental package, President Biden has signed into law two provisions targeting data use practices by websites, desktop applications, mobile apps, and augmented or immersive technology...more

Buchalter

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Impacts California Developers

Buchalter on

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision that may have major impacts on developers in California, although the degree of impact will depend on how lower courts interpret that decision. In Sheetz...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

What the Sheetz: Where California Development Impact Fees Stand Following Recent Supreme Court Decision

Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs) can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes...more

Latham & Watkins LLP

US Supreme Court Decision Invites Scrutiny of Legislatively Imposed Impact Fees

Latham & Watkins LLP on

The unanimous opinion holds that development impact fees established through the legislative process are subject to constitutional scrutiny as potential regulatory takings. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the...more

Allen Matkins

Sustainable Development and Land Use Update 4.18.24

Allen Matkins on

On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. The case concerned the legality of a local jurisdiction’s imposition of a traffic impact...more

655 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 27

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide