News & Analysis as of

Building Permits Constitutional Challenges

Miller Starr Regalia

Sheetz v. El Dorado County: Death Knell for Development Fee Programs or Harbinger of Judicial Deference?

Miller Starr Regalia on

The United States Supreme Court’s most recent Takings case, Sheetz v. El Dorado County, California enunciated a seemingly simple holding, that legislatively-imposed development fees are not, as such, exempt from analysis...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

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

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

Sands Anderson PC

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Chipping Away at Elected Officials’ Power Over Development Costs

Sands Anderson PC on

The US Supreme Court’s decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado earlier this month will affect how local governments impose impact fees in the future and who pays certain development costs....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

Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP

Supreme Court Leaves the Sheetz Out In Takings Case

When the government wants to take private property for a public project, it must compensate the owner at fair market value. The just compensation concept comes from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which provides: “nor...more

Otten Johnson Robinson Neff + Ragonetti PC

U.S. Supreme Court: Legislative Impact Fees Can Be Unconstitutional Exactions Too

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, in which the Court held that for the purpose of a takings claim there is no distinction in whether permit conditions...more

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

U.S. Supreme Court: Takings Clause Applies to Impact Fees on New Development

The Sheetz v. County of El Dorado decision will create uncertainty in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and many other states as cities, counties, developers and property owners reexamine whether existing impact fee...more

Venable LLP

SCOTUS Rules for Landowner in Fifth Amendment Takings Clause Case

Venable LLP on

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land‑use permit conditions. Building permit...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Property Owner in Exaction Takings Case

Ballard Spahr LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court last week unanimously held that the Takings Clause of the Constitution prevents legislatures, as well as administrative agencies, from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Supreme Court Concludes the Takings Clause Applies to Legislative Fee Enactments

On April 12, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. Cnty. Of El Dorado, California, 22-1074 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024) and unanimously held that legislative actions can still be unconstitutional exactions...more

Allen Matkins

Supreme Court Narrows Local Governments’ Ability to Impose Impact Fees – A Potential Sea Change for California

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, U.S. No. 22-1074 (petition for certiorari granted 9/29/23) (Sheetz). The case concerned the...more

Epstein Becker & Green

Unanimity Among Justices Rules the Day - SCOTUS Today

Epstein Becker & Green on

Some commentators claim there are bitter divisions among the Justices, roiling the Court and its processes. Many of the same commentators were critical of the Court’s decision holding that former President Trump was not...more

Nossaman LLP

Supreme Court Holds that Legislative Impact Fee Programs Can Constitute a Taking

Nossaman LLP on

Today, April 12, 2024, in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overruled more than two decades of California precedent, holding that legislatively established development impact fee programs must...more

Saiber LLC

SCOTUS Asked to Clarify the Scope of Constitutional Challenges to Land Use Permit Conditions

Saiber LLC on

In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, when George Sheetz sought a building permit to construct a single-family residence, the County of El Dorado agreed to issue the permit with one important condition: he had to pay...more

Goulston & Storrs PC

Law of the Land - Real Estate Litigation Newsletter - March 2022, Volume I, Issue XII

Goulston & Storrs PC on

CASES OF NOTE - SIMILAR PROJECTS, DIFFERENT DECISIONS - Brossi, et al. v. Town of Grafton Planning Board, et al., No. 19 MISC 000551 (MDV), 2021 WL 5833935 (Mass. Land Ct. Dec. 9, 2021) - The Massachusetts Land...more

Holland & Knight LLP

California "In Lieu" Affordable Housing Fees Withstand Constitutional Challenge - U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition to Review...

Holland & Knight LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 30, 2017, denied a petition for certiorari filed by the developers of an 11-unit residential condominium project in the City of West Hollywood seeking to challenge the application by the City of...more

19 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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