News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Takings Clause

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
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

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Reacting to Tyler v. Hennepin County: Nebraska Supreme Court Imposes Liability on Investors

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP on

On Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued its opinions in Fair v. Continental Resources, No. S-21-074, and Nieveen v. TAX 106, No. S-21-364, following remand from the United States Supreme Court in the wake of Tyler v....more

Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass

Supreme Court Impact Fee Decision Creates Opportunities for Developers and Property Owners

Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass on

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

Holland & Knight LLP

Permit Conditions and Impact Fees Subject of Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Holland & Knight LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court in April 2024 issued a unanimous decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (144 S. Ct. 893), concluding that the "Takings Clause" in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to...more

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

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: The Supreme Court's Latest Restraint on Development Fees

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP on

On April 12, 2024, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, 601 U.S. 267, 144 S. Ct. 893 (2024). Sheetz concerned El Dorado County's imposition of...more

Polsinelli

SCOTUS Decision May Limit Municipalities’ Ability to Collect Impact Fees

Polsinelli on

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

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

Buchalter

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Impacts California Developers

Buchalter on

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision that may have major impacts on developers in California, although the degree of impact will depend on how lower courts interpret that decision. In Sheetz...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

Allen Matkins

Sustainable Development and Land Use Update 4.18.24

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. The case concerned the legality of a local jurisdiction’s imposition of a traffic impact...more

Perkins Coie

Supreme Court Rules Legislatively Adopted Exactions Not Exempt From Nollan/Dolan Scrutiny 

Perkins Coie on

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

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

Nossaman LLP

State Inverse Condemnation Remedy Sufficient To Vindicate Constitutional Rights

Nossaman LLP on

Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and… dodge.  An interesting case from the United States Supreme Court yesterday.  Interesting because of what it says, and interesting because of what it very explicitly declined to say....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

Saul Ewing LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Two Takings Cases in One Week

Saul Ewing LLP on

It is rare for the Supreme Court to decide cases involving the Constitution’s Takings Clause, and, indeed, not uncommon for the Court to go years without considering the Clause at all; so, when the Court issues two decisions...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - April 17, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions on Tuesday, April 16: Rudisill v. McDonough, No. 22-888: This case concerns the interaction between two federal statutes providing up to 36 months of...more

Perkins Coie

Supreme Court Rules Legislative Permit Conditions Not Exempt From Nollan/Dolan Scrutiny

Perkins Coie on

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

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

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

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

224 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 9
Next »

"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