Administrative/Regulatory,
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr. 24, 2024
The fourth time is a charm
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions and that the practice of exacting property or cash as a development condition is extortion. The County no longer disputes the ruling and hopes for a remand to address the issue.
Michael M. Berger
Senior Counsel
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
2049 Century Park East
Los Angeles , CA 90067
Phone: (310) 312-4185
Fax: (310) 996-6968
Email: mmberger@manatt.com
USC Law School
Michael M. Berger is senior counsel at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, where he is co-chair of the Appellate Practice Group. He has argued four takings cases in the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is the fourth column that I have written about Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. For those who missed the first three, the case is about a property owner in rural California who wanted to place a small manufactured home on his lot. As a condition for doing so, the County demanded an arbitrary fee of $23,420 for road improvements. In each of those earlier columns, I beseeched the courts to bring some rationality to this dark little corner...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In