Supreme Court Hands Landowners a Major Victory - Nossaman's Brad Kuhn
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
A recent Sixth Circuit decision holding unconstitutional a municipal tree ordinance that required mitigation or payment as a condition of tree removal has caused some consternation among municipal lawyers, who foresee the...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 U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in a long-running land use case holding that “extortionate demands” by the local government entity constituted illegal interference with a property owner/developer’s right to...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District expands the holdings of Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374...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
It’s the last week of the U.S. Supreme Court’s term, so the big 5-4 decisions are out. Tuesday the big decision was Koontz v. St. Johns River, a takings case. This completes the trilogy of takings cases in front of the...more
Many real estate industry professionals are familiar with the government's substantial power and discretion in land-use permitting. Land-use applicants on the verge of lucrative development opportunities find themselves in a...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
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, 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
If a governmental authority denies approval of a land-use permit because an applicant refuses to spend money on a government project, such as a mitigation project, the government must defend its denial under heightened...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