News & Analysis as of

Fifth Amendment › Property Owners › Impact Fees

Stoel Rives - Ahead of Schedule

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

Stoel Rives - Ahead of Schedule on

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

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

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

Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP

Supreme Court Leaves the Sheetz Out In Takings Case

Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP on

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

Otten Johnson Robinson Neff + Ragonetti PC on

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

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck on

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

Holland & Knight LLP

Supreme Court Sets Stage for Widespread Challenges to Real Estate Development Impact Fees

Holland & Knight LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 12, 2024, that the "Takings Clause" enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies equally to legislative and administratively imposed land use permitting fees. Since...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Supreme Court Concludes the Takings Clause Applies to Legislative Fee Enactments

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

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

Allen Matkins

U.S. Supreme Court Will Clarify the Constitutionality of Legislatively-Authorized Land Use Exaction Fees

Allen Matkins on

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 29, 2023 in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, a case that challenges the County of El Dorado’s requirement that a property owner pay a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee...more

12 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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide