Balado continuité – Environnement : nouveautés du régime d’autorisation québécois
Rapid Transit Zones in Miami-Dade County
Real Estate Developer Rights When Cities Demand Too Much
[WEBINAR] Planning in the Coastal Zone
Homebuilder Series Webinar: Joint Ventures Solutions, Steve Lear
The Koontz Decision: Limits Conditions a Government can Impose on Developers
Supreme Court Hands Landowners a Major Victory - Nossaman's Brad Kuhn
California Commercial Real Estate Forecast - Industrial & Multifamily Remain the Bright Spot in the Winter 2013 Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Survey Results
California Commercial Real Estate Forecast - Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Winter 2013 Survey Reveals Dip in Developer Sentiment
California Commercial Real Estate Forecast - Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Survey Results Reveal Tension Between Developer Sentiment & Action
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 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
An initiative measure that required new development to mitigate not only its individual traffic impacts but also cumulative impacts of other projects on traffic levels of service violated the rough-proportionality standard of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an important decision in an attempt to add clarity and help government land use planners understand the difference between reasonable requests and unreasonable demands rising to the level of...more
The extent to which governmental authorities may condition land use permits on exactions and concessions from land use permit applicants has received extraordinary attention from the United States Supreme Court in recent...more
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy, the US Supreme Court in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District broadened the protections...more
The high court’s decision in Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District extends the landmark decisions in Nollan and Dolan, which set standards on when an agency can condition a land use permit on the relinquishment...more
On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down arguably one of the most influential Takings Clause decisions since the Kelo v. City of New London1 ruling in 2005. In a 5-4 decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water...more
In a decision that will impact land-development projects nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court held this week that the government may not condition a land-use permit on mitigation requirements that do not have an essential...more
In a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court expanded the reach of the requirement that there be a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the impacts of a proposed development and governmental conditions imposed on the...more
The Supreme Court ruled today, in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, that a property owner who is denied a land use permit on the ground that he refused to pay money to compensate for the harm to be caused...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its opinion in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Agency. The case involved the extent of local government's ability to place conditions on the issuance of land use permits. Although...more
In our niche practice of eminent domain, inverse condemnation, and regulatory takings, the blogosphere world is going bonkers. Why? Because the United State Supreme Court just issued its decision in Koontz v. St. Johns...more
As we previewed in our recent "year in review" piece, the U.S. Supreme Court has some takings issues before it this term. One case, Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management District, took center stage yesterday. ...more