Law Commons^™

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

Mark Fenster

In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, a 5-4 majority of the United States Supreme Court reversed a state court decision that had limited the application of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. Nollan and Dolan concern the imposition of regulatory conditions on proposed development, also called exactions, which commonly occurs in land use regulation. In Koontz, a property owner challenged a regulatory agency's denial of his permit application following failed negotiations over exactions. The Florida Supreme Court had concluded that Nollan and Dolan did not extend to conditions that the agency had …

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

UF Law Faculty Publications

In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, a 5-4 majority of the United States Supreme Court reversed a state court decision that had limited the application of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. Nollan and Dolan concern the imposition of regulatory conditions on proposed development, also called exactions, which commonly occurs in land use regulation. In Koontz, a property owner challenged a regulatory agency's denial of his permit application following failed negotiations over exactions. The Florida Supreme Court had concluded that Nollan and Dolan did not extend to conditions that …

Regulating Land Use In A Constitutional Shadow: The Institutional Contexts Of Exactions, Mark Fenster

UF Law Faculty Publications

The regulatory takings doctrine, the Supreme Court declared in Lingle v. Chevron, concerns the effects of a regulation on the incidents of property ownership. It serves as a constitutional protection against regulations that impose the functional equivalent to a classic taking of private property (an appropriation by the state or an ouster), and it requires compensation for owners who are subject to such regulations. Just as significant as declaring what the regulatory takings doctrine is, theCourt in Lingle also declared what it is not: it is not a judicial check onthe validity or reasonableness of a regulation that …

Life, Liberty & Whose Property?: An Essay On Property Rights, Loren A. Smith

University of Richmond Law Review

This essay explores the place that the concept of property rights occupies in our constitutional system. The word "property" has been used in a number of ways in the history of our Republic.

Takings In The Court Of Federal Claims: Does The Court Make Takings Policy In Hage?, Danielle M. Stager

University of Richmond Law Review

In the eleven western states, almost half of the land is federally owned and a large percentage of that federal land is used for grazing privately-owned domestic livestock. The Department of the Interior estimates that permitted grazing occurs on thirty-six percent of federal land, but this percentage is much higher in the areas containing more federal rangeland. In 1990, the eleven western states had approximately seventeen million beef cattle and 102,800 beef producers. Roughly eighteen percent of those beef producers had federal grazing permits, but in some states that percentage was much higher. For example, eighty-eight percent of the cattle …

The Supreme Court's Land Use Decisions (Symposium - The Supreme Court And Local Government Law, 1993-94 Term), Leon D. Lazer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

City Of Tigard And Takings Law, Richard D. Lazarus

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

10 pages.

Contains 1 page of references.