Adaptive Reuse: From Desks to Doorways
JONES DAY TALKS®: Real Assets Roundup Episode 3: One Big Beautiful Bill (OB3)
Breaking the Cycle: Flooding, Infrastructure, and Climate Law in Practice
JONES DAY TALKS®: Real Assets Roundup: A New Look at Real Estate, Energy, and Infrastructure - Episode 1
From Permits to Penalties: A Deep Dive Into Coastal Development Law
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | SCbio 2025 Preview with President & CEO James Chappell
Dinsmore's Sam Hargitt on working with some of Indianapolis' top developers and investors
Business Better Podcast Episode: Distressed Office Buildings: A Look at Workout and Enforcement
Cornerstone Research Experts in Focus: Mark Garmaise
Navigating Legal Risk in Real Estate Development - Speaking of Litigation Podcast
Stroock Presents: GOAT Town, Episode 4: Office-to-Residential Conversions in NYC – Magic Bullet or Merely One Piece of the Puzzle?
Business Better Podcast Episode: Affordable Housing in Chinatown, Los Angeles: How To Better Serve Your Community
Stroock Presents: GOAT Town, Episode 3, Part 2: “NYC's One-of-a-Kind Agency to Drive Economic Growth”
Can Office to Residential Conversions Help Revitalize Downtown? (Audio)
Developing Philly: The State of Philadelphia's Tax Abatements in 2022
Creative Reuse: The Opportunities and Challenges of Converting Office Space to Residential
Office-to-Apartment Conversions – A Good Idea, but Tricky to Pull Off (Audio)
Episode 17 | Public-Private Collaboration as a Means to Economic Development - A Blueprint from the Shaker Heights Development Fund
Into the Future: Modern Partnerships in Health Care Construction Delivery
On-Demand Webinar | Living on the Edge: Managing Sea Level Rise in California
29 Greenwood, LLC v. City of Newton, 128 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2025) In 29 Greenwood, the Newton Historical Commission (the “Commission”) issued a permit to 29 Greenwood, LLC (“Greenwood”) for restoration of the Gershom Hyde...more
The United States Supreme Court’s April 12, 2024 decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado unanimously rejected longstanding California precedent. The Court’s decision further solidified that fees imposed as a condition of...more
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
In 2024, in what was heralded as a big win for developers in California, the U.S. Supreme Court upended decades of California precedent and held that legislatively enacted development impact fees must satisfy the “essential...more
Can a public entity be held liable for inverse condemnation when it fails to prevent another party from causing damage to private property? This one is pretty simple: the answer is no....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
Investors and developers scour the Southern California real estate market searching for opportunities to buy dated houses that they can demolish and replace with large, modern homes to sell for much more. A few individuals...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
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
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
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
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
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided Sheetz v. El Dorado County, No. 22-1074, holding that the Takings Clause “does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions,” but instead...more
Some commentators claim there are bitter divisions among the Justices, roiling the Court and its processes. Many of the same commentators were critical of the Court’s decision holding that former President Trump was not...more