Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency case brief summary
535 U.S. 302
SYNOPSIS: Petitioners, landowners near a pristine lake, sued defendant regional planning agency, alleging that the development moratoria ordered by the agency constituted an unlawful taking of the landowners' property without compensation. On petition for a writ of certiorari, the landowners challenged the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the district court's finding that a taking occurred.
FACTS:
-The agency imposed the temporary moratoria to maintain the status quo while studying the impact of development near a popular resort lake and designing an environmentally sound growth strategy.
-The landowners contended that the moratoria against all viable economic use of their properties imposed a constitutional obligation on the agency to compensate the landowners for the value of its use during the moratoria.
HOLDING:
The United State Supreme Court held, however, that the mere enactment of the regulations implementing the moratoria did not constitute a per se taking of the landowners' property.
ANALYSIS:
Rather, whether a taking occurred depended upon consideration of the landowners' investment-backed expectations, the actual impact of the regulation on the landowners, the importance of the public interest involved, and the reasons for imposing the temporary restriction.
-Adoption of a categorical rule that any deprivation of all economic use, no matter how brief, constituted a compensable taking would impose unreasonable financial obligations upon governments for the normal delays involved in processing land use applications and would improperly encourage hasty decision making.
OUTCOME: The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, reversing the finding that an unconstitutional taking occurred.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
535 U.S. 302
SYNOPSIS: Petitioners, landowners near a pristine lake, sued defendant regional planning agency, alleging that the development moratoria ordered by the agency constituted an unlawful taking of the landowners' property without compensation. On petition for a writ of certiorari, the landowners challenged the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the district court's finding that a taking occurred.
FACTS:
-The agency imposed the temporary moratoria to maintain the status quo while studying the impact of development near a popular resort lake and designing an environmentally sound growth strategy.
-The landowners contended that the moratoria against all viable economic use of their properties imposed a constitutional obligation on the agency to compensate the landowners for the value of its use during the moratoria.
HOLDING:
The United State Supreme Court held, however, that the mere enactment of the regulations implementing the moratoria did not constitute a per se taking of the landowners' property.
ANALYSIS:
Rather, whether a taking occurred depended upon consideration of the landowners' investment-backed expectations, the actual impact of the regulation on the landowners, the importance of the public interest involved, and the reasons for imposing the temporary restriction.
-Adoption of a categorical rule that any deprivation of all economic use, no matter how brief, constituted a compensable taking would impose unreasonable financial obligations upon governments for the normal delays involved in processing land use applications and would improperly encourage hasty decision making.
OUTCOME: The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, reversing the finding that an unconstitutional taking occurred.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment