Residential Contractor Boot Camp
Key Lease Work Letter Issues When the Tenant Is Doing the Work
DE Under 3: FAR Council Issued Final Rule Requiring Unionized Workforces on Large Federal Construction Projects
Podcast: Owner’s Outlook: Managing Risks in an Ever-Changing Construction Environment - Diagnosing Health Care
Moving the Ball for Metro Atlanta Mobility: Atlanta Regional Commission - TAG Infrastructure Talks Podcast
Data, Architectural Engineering, and Designing a Better Future
4 Key Takeaways | The Future of Construction, Infrastructure and Energy Disputes in the Endemic Age
Podcast: Owner's Outlook: HCA's Clint Russell on Health Care Construction Pricing and Innovation - Diagnosing Health Care
8 Key Takeaways | Hot Topics in Construction Contracting
Podcast: Owner's Outlook: Maximize and Safeguard Reimbursement Through Design - Diagnosing Health Care
Podcast: Owner's Outlook: Renovating and Expanding Critical Access Hospitals in a Volatile Market - Diagnosing Health Care
Podcast: Owner's Outlook: Health Care Construction in a Period of Labor Shortages / Cost Inflation - Diagnosing Health Care
The Labor Law Insider: Project Labor Agreements, Part I
DE Under 3: OFCCP AAP Verification Portal 'Rules of Behavior', Vaccination Injunction Updates, & Recent Job Scam Alerts
Construction Webinar Series: The Infrastructure Bill’s Impact on DOT’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program
Construction Webinar Series: Preparing for and Managing Claims in the COVID-19 Project Environment
Into the Future: Modern Partnerships in Health Care Construction Delivery
Law Brief®: David Pfeffer and Richard Schoenstein Discuss the Legal Implications of Infrastructure Collapses
Protect Your Construction Project: Top 10 Insurance Provisions to Know
Practical Training for Project Managers & Supervisors Two-Part Webinar Series: Part Two
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
In a dispute over a traffic impact fee imposed on a residential building permit by El Dorado County, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the long-standing position of California and other state courts that the Takings...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, a case that concerns whether land use permit conditions in the form of monetary exactions created by legislation are...more
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in George Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, agreeing to answer the question of whether legislatively enacted development impact fees are subject to a lower level of constitutional...more
Summary - The Supreme Court of the United States announced that it will hear a Takings Clause case under the Fifth Amendment that will clarify whether permit exaction fees authorized by legislation are exempt from the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an opinion in Sackett v. EPA that established a stricter test for whether the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) applies to a wetland. The test limits federal jurisdiction to wetlands with a...more
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a long-standing controversy over the extent to which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE; collectively, the Agencies) have...more
By refusing to hear an appeal of a decision by a Florida appellate court, the US Supreme Court effectively sided with a developer who won a multi-million judgment against someone who tried to undermine the developer’s...more