News & Analysis as of

Real Estate Development Constitutional Challenges

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard,...

Stormwater Runoff/Residential Development: Arkansas Court of Appeals Addresses Jurisdictional Issue

The Court of Appeals of Arkansas (“Court”) addressed in a May 14th Opinion a jurisdictional dispute involving alleged residential development stormwater runoff issues. See Centofante, et al. v. Ferguson, 2025 WL 1386368. ...more

K&L Gates LLP

Understanding the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Decision in Attorney General v. Town of Milton

K&L Gates LLP on

Signed into law in January 2021, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Communities Act (the Communities Act) requires all 177 cities and towns with access to MBTA public transportation (e.g., commuter rail,...more

Otten Johnson Robinson Neff + Ragonetti PC

Colorado Cities Sue State Over 2024 Housing Density and Parking Reforms

Several Colorado municipalities have sued the state challenging the constitutionality of landmark zoning reforms enacted in 2024.  The lawsuit specifically concerns two new laws passed by the legislature and one executive...more

Allen Matkins

Challenging the Industrial Exodus: Legal Lessons from Santa Ana’s Planning Reboot

Allen Matkins on

The City of Santa Ana (City) has recently undertaken an ambitious — and highly controversial — effort to reshape the landscape of its historically industrial-centric Transit Zoning Code (TZC) district. Through the adoption of...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

IEEPA Tariffs to Remain Temporarily Despite Adverse Ruling; Aluminum and Steel Tariff Rate Increased

Troutman Pepper Locke on

On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the tariffs imposed by President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful. In the case of V.O.S. v. United States, the court...more

Whiteford

Client Alert: Updates on Developments in “Missing Middle” Housing Policies - UPDATED 4/30/25

Whiteford on

Recent legal and policy developments continue to shape the landscape for “Missing Middle” housing initiatives, impacting developers, municipalities, and communities alike. Arlington County's Expanded Housing Option (EHO)...more

Mayer Brown

Brasília em Pauta – Edição Nº 190

Mayer Brown on

Prezados e prezadas, O “Brasília em Pauta” é um boletim semanal preparado pela equipe de Contencioso de Brasília, contendo os principais casos a serem julgados pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), Superior Tribunal de...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Arizona Supreme Court Expands Just Compensation Rights in Eminent Domain Case

Ballard Spahr LLP on

In a significant victory for property owners, the Arizona Supreme Court held this week that damages in condemnation cases can include compensation for the reduction in value caused by the proximity of homes to a new highway...more

Verrill

Balancing Local Control and State Mandates: The Implications of the MBTA Communities Act Ruling

Verrill on

The state’s highest court has affirmed the Legislature’s power to force towns to adopt denser, transit-friendly zoning. In 2021, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Communities Act (G. L. c. 40A, § 3A)...more

Pierce Atwood LLP

Breaking: Mass. SJC rules MBTA Communities Act is constitutional but its implementing "guidelines” are invalid

Pierce Atwood LLP on

In its eagerly anticipated decision issued this morning in Attorney General v. Town of Milton, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has ruled that the MBTA Communities Act (the Act), which former Governor Charlie Baker signed...more

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

Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass

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

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

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

The Superior Court of California Invalidates the HOME Act

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Several cities in California successfully petitioned for a writ of mandate seeking the invalidation of California Senate Bill 9 (the HOME Act)....more

Stoel Rives -  Ahead of Schedule

The United States Supreme Court Determines There Is No Distinction Between Legislative and Administrative Takings

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

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

Sands Anderson PC

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Chipping Away at Elected Officials’ Power Over Development Costs

Sands Anderson PC on

The US Supreme Court’s decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado earlier this month will affect how local governments impose impact fees in the future and who pays certain development costs....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

What the Sheetz: Where California Development Impact Fees Stand Following Recent Supreme Court Decision

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

Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP

Supreme Court Leaves the Sheetz Out In Takings Case

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

Otten Johnson Robinson Neff + Ragonetti PC

U.S. Supreme Court: Legislative Impact Fees Can Be Unconstitutional Exactions Too

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

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

U.S. Supreme Court: Takings Clause Applies to Impact Fees on New Development

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Supreme Court Concludes the Takings Clause Applies to Legislative Fee Enactments

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

Allen Matkins

Supreme Court Narrows Local Governments’ Ability to Impose Impact Fees – A Potential Sea Change for California

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, U.S. No. 22-1074 (petition for certiorari granted 9/29/23) (Sheetz). The case concerned the...more

38 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide