In That Case: Department of State v. Muñoz
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 418: Listen and Learn -- Criminal Procedure: Miranda Warnings
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 19 - The Fifth Amendment & Its Role in Parallel Proceedings
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 323: Listen and Learn -- The Exclusionary Rule (Criminal Law and Procedure)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 157: Listen and Learn -- The Sixth Amendment
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 154: Listen and Learn -- The Exclusionary Rule (Criminal Law and Procedure)
Eminent Domain: First Principles, Kelo, and In Service of Infrastructure Buildout
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 140: Listen and Learn -- Regulatory Takings
#WorkforceWednesday: Mandatory Vaccination, Tipped Worker Rule, and SCOTUS Rules Against Organized Labor - Employment Law This Week®
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 290: Listen and Learn -- Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 128: Listen and Learn -- Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights
More Emerging Litigation Claims and Demands from COVID-19
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 79: Tackling an MEE Criminal Law/Procedure and Evidence Essay
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 70: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Criminal Law and Procedure
Podcast - Developments in FDA & DOJ Regulation and Enforcement of Manufacturer Communications
The Koontz Decision: Limits Conditions a Government can Impose on Developers
Supreme Court Hands Landowners a Major Victory - Nossaman's Brad Kuhn
How Does Immunity Work in a Federal Criminal Case?
The Ohio and U.S. Constitutions require that the power of eminent domain can only be exercised when necessary for a public use. In the 2005 case of Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court took an expansive view...more
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
We’ve reported in the past that public agencies are more frequently demanding certain off-site public improvements to accommodate proposed private developments as a condition of entitlement approval. These can range from...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, U.S. No. 22-1074 (petition for certiorari granted 9/29/23) (Sheetz). The case concerned the...more
The city of Berkeley will pay $4 million in connection with its mishandling of an application to build 260 housing units on the old Spenger's parking lot. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch fined Berkeley $2.6...more
When George Sheetz planned to build an 1800-square-foot manufactured home on his California property, he could hardly have thought his routine permit request would end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. But when the County of El...more
Summary - The Supreme Court of the United States announced that it will hear a Takings Clause case under the Fifth Amendment that will clarify whether permit exaction fees authorized by legislation are exempt from the...more
CASES OF NOTE - SIMILAR PROJECTS, DIFFERENT DECISIONS - Brossi, et al. v. Town of Grafton Planning Board, et al., No. 19 MISC 000551 (MDV), 2021 WL 5833935 (Mass. Land Ct. Dec. 9, 2021) - The Massachusetts Land...more
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The California Constitution contains a similar provision. Reading these constitutional...more
Resolving an issue not previously decided by Massachusetts appellate courts, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that a landowner is not entitled to a jury trial on a regulatory taking claim....more
Recently, Colorado voters rejected Proposition 112, which would have changed Colorado law to require 2,500-foot setbacks between new oil and gas development and homes or other (vaguely described) “vulnerable areas.” It has...more
When state and local governments impose unreasonable conditions or exactions on private property, owners pursuing a regulatory takings claim often face a maze of procedural obstacles just to have their case heard. ...more
On June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., No. 16-605, holding that a litigant who wishes to seek relief different from that sought by a party with standing in a lawsuit may not...more