News & Analysis as of

Takings Clause Fifth Amendment

Ackerman & Ackerman, P.C.

Unjust Compensation

This article examines whether increased mortgage interest costs and property tax assessments should be compensable under the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause. While courts have traditionally limited compensation in...more

MG+M The Law Firm

Schaap v. United States: PFAS Litigation Continues to Evolve with Novel Takings Clause Claim

MG+M The Law Firm on

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) litigation is rapidly becoming one of the most dynamic and evolving areas of environmental law. With thousands of cases consolidated in the Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF)...more

Bricker Graydon LLP

Land banking after Tyler: No government taking where there’s a process (so says federal 6th Cir.)

Bricker Graydon LLP on

Land banking advocates across the country took notice of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County that found a “government taking” occurred when a Minnesota county sold a tax-foreclosed home to recover...more

WilmerHale

Readily Ascertainable - WilmerHale's Trade Secret Bulletin: January 2025

WilmerHale on

This month’s cases involve a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on the extraterritorial application of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, a matter of first impression before the Court of Federal Claims, and a reminder...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

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

DarrowEverett LLP

Land Use Challenges Showcase What’s There for the ‘Taking’

DarrowEverett LLP on

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just...more

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Reacting to Tyler v. Hennepin County: Michigan Addresses Retroactivity of Legislative Fix

In a recent case, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion in Schafer v. Kent County, No. 164975, addressing the critical issue of surplus equity stemming from a tax foreclosure within the context of the state...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

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

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: The Supreme Court's Latest Restraint on Development Fees

On April 12, 2024, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, 601 U.S. 267, 144 S. Ct. 893 (2024). Sheetz concerned El Dorado County's imposition of...more

Polsinelli

SCOTUS Decision May Limit Municipalities’ Ability to Collect Impact Fees

Polsinelli on

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

Robinson+Cole Data Privacy + Security Insider

Privacy Tip #397 – TikTok and ByteDance File Suit Against the United States

As threatened, TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd., the owner of the TikTok app, filed suit against the United States on May 7, 2024, alleging that the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act...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

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

Latham & Watkins LLP

US Supreme Court Decision Invites Scrutiny of Legislatively Imposed Impact Fees

Latham & Watkins LLP on

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

Allen Matkins

Sustainable Development and Land Use Update 4.18.24

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. The case concerned the legality of a local jurisdiction’s imposition of a traffic impact...more

Perkins Coie

Supreme Court Rules Legislatively Adopted Exactions Not Exempt From Nollan/Dolan Scrutiny 

Perkins Coie on

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

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

Nossaman LLP

State Inverse Condemnation Remedy Sufficient To Vindicate Constitutional Rights

Nossaman LLP on

Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and… dodge.  An interesting case from the United States Supreme Court yesterday.  Interesting because of what it says, and interesting because of what it very explicitly declined to say....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

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - April 17, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions on Tuesday, April 16: Rudisill v. McDonough, No. 22-888: This case concerns the interaction between two federal statutes providing up to 36 months of...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

269 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 11

"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