Law Commons^™

Martin V. United States, Mitch L. Werbell V

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Martin v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings and exaction claim for want of ripeness when the claimant failed to apply for a permit, which would have allowed for an assessment of the cost of compliance with governmentally imposed requirements. By finding the claim unripe, the court stood firm on the historical view that federal courts may only adjudicate land-use regulatory takings and inverse condemnation claims on the merits after a regulating entity has made a final decision. However, jurisprudential evolution of the ripeness doctrine and judicial review of takings claims may …

Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine Of Unconstitutional Conditions, Brian T. Hodges

Seattle Journal of Environmental Law

Washington’s cities and counties are increasingly demanding that owners of residential shoreline properties dedicate large, predetermined critical area buffers as a mandatory condition of any new development. Such demands, when imposed without regard to the specifics of the land use proposal, would appear to violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). Early decisions from Washington courts faithfully applied these tests, invalidating open space and buffer dedications. But in a series of …

Supreme Court, New York County, Uhlfelder V. Weinshall, David Schoenhaar

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York, Consumers Union Of United States, Inc. V. New York, Daphne Vlcek

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Big Chill? - The Likely Impact Of Koontz On The Local Governments/Developer Relationship, Julie A. Tappendorf, Matthew T. Dicanni

Touro Law Review

This article will explore the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, showing how it has evolved in the context of land use and come to be the logical underpinning of controversial Supreme Court decisions regarding exactions. Part I will explain the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, providing a brief overview of its development over the course of the past century. Part II will then discuss how this doctrine has come to be the logical foundation on which the Supreme Court’s exactions jurisprudence rests. Part III will discuss the Koontz decision and its impact on the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. In Part IV, we …

Substantive Due Process By Another Name: Koontz, Exactions, And The Regulatory Takings Doctrine, Mark Fenster

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Koontz V. St. Johns River Water Management District, Ross Keogh

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Koontz extends the application of Nollan and Dolan, which require exactions of real property for land-use permits to share a “nexus” and be “roughly proportional” to the regulation to be constitutional. A divided United States Supreme Court held that “monetary exactions,” potentially including building permit fees or impact fees, must satisfy the Nollan and Dolan requirements even if the government denies the permit.[1] The Court did not reach the merits of the petitioner’s appeal.

[1](Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., dissenting).