U.S. Supreme Court,
Land Use,
Government
Sep. 25, 2024
Are local governments violating Supreme Court exaction precedents?
Despite Supreme Court rulings requiring a direct link between development projects and financial exactions, municipalities violate these principles by imposing unjust fees and misallocating funds.
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.
The United States Supreme Court is no stranger to cases involving fees
demanded by local government agencies in return for development permits. The
issue has been a regular presence at the Court recently. See Nollan v. Cal.
Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512
U.S. 374 (1994); Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District,
570 U.S. 595 (2013); Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024).
...
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