Nollan v. California: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
|procedural_history=Nollan challenged the conditional permit in state court | |||
|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]]. | |||
|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 |
Revision as of 23:10, 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
Arguments
Nollan argued that the condition violates the Takings Clause in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Comments
Resources