News & Analysis as of

Fifth Amendment › Urban Planning & Development

Roetzel & Andress

Ohio Court Affirms Eminent Domain Taking for Downtown Zanesville Redevelopment Project

Roetzel & Andress on

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

Nossaman LLP

Development Conditions Requiring Off-Site Property Acquisitions Not Subject to Takings Law?

Nossaman LLP on

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

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

Nossaman LLP

Presentation at Right of Way Consultant’s Council Membership Meeting in Las Vegas

Nossaman LLP on

The Right of Way Consultant’s Council Membership Meeting took place in Downtown Las Vegas on November 3, 2023.  Having previously presented an eminent domain topic at the 2022 Membership Meeting, Steven Silva from Nossaman’s...more

Allen Matkins

Court Holds That County’s Traffic Mitigation Fee Was Valid Under the California Mitigation Fee Act and Did Not Violate the Takings...

Allen Matkins on

California’s Court of Appeal for the Third District recently held that El Dorado County’s imposition of a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIM) as a condition of approval for a residential building permit was valid under the...more

Perkins Coie

Traffic Mitigation Fee Did Not Violate the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine Under Nolan and Dolan

Perkins Coie on

A traffic mitigation fee required for construction of a single-family home did not amount to an “unconstitutional condition” in violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the County complied with the...more

6 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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