Nollan v. California: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
m (DeRien moved page Nollan v. California Coastal Commission to Nollan v. California: shorten) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|issues=Can a state agency impose a condition on the approval of a private-property owner's land-use permit if there isn't an essential nexus between the condition & a legitimate state interest? | |issues=Can a state agency impose a condition on the approval of a private-property owner's land-use permit if there isn't an essential nexus between the condition & a legitimate state interest? | ||
|arguments=Nollan argued that the condition violates the [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/taking Takings Clause] in the 5th Amendment to the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]]. | |arguments=Nollan argued that the condition violates the [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/taking Takings Clause] in the 5th Amendment to the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]]. | ||
|holding=No; a state agency can't impose a condition on the approval of a private-property owner's land-use permit unless there's an essential nexus between the condition & the legitimate state interest at issue. | |||
|judgment=Reversed | |||
|reasons=Antonin Scalia: if the state told Nollan to convey an easement without compensation, then that would be an un-constitutional taking. | |||
|comments=[[Property_Merrill/Outline#XVI._EXACTIONS]] | |comments=[[Property_Merrill/Outline#XVI._EXACTIONS]] | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
Latest revision as of 23:23, April 15, 2024
| Nollan v. California | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | 483 U.S. 825 |
| Date decided | June 26, 1987 |
Facts
- Nollan owned a beach-front property between 2 public beaches in Ventura County, California.
- Nollan wanted to build a bigger house. So, he applied for a permit from the California Coastal Commission (CCC; "California").
- California granted the permit to build a larger house with a proviso that Nollan convey an easement allowing the public to cross the beach on his land
- California found the proposed house of Nollan would block the public's view of the ocean
Procedural History
- Nollan challenged the conditional permit in state court
- Nollan won in the trial court, but he lost in the appellate court
Issues
Can a state agency impose a condition on the approval of a private-property owner's land-use permit if there isn't an essential nexus between the condition & a legitimate state interest?
Arguments
Nollan argued that the condition violates the Takings Clause in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Holding
No; a state agency can't impose a condition on the approval of a private-property owner's land-use permit unless there's an essential nexus between the condition & the legitimate state interest at issue.
Judgment
Reversed
Reasons
Antonin Scalia: if the state told Nollan to convey an easement without compensation, then that would be an un-constitutional taking.
Comments
Resources
