Assignment 8: The Takings Clause

Assignment 8: The Takings Clause

BRIEFING COURT DECISIONS

Case Brief 1

Dolan v. City Of Tigard (1994) 512 US 374.

Dolan (Appellant) sought to double the size of her existing plumbing and electric supply store and also double the pavement of parking lot. Dolan was granted the permit on conditions imposed by City Planning Commission which held that expansion should be conditioned on the basis that there should be 10% land set aside in order minimizing flood conditions and help mange flow of traffic within City of Tigard. Dolan seeks the aid of courts to obtain compensation for her dedication of portion of property on the grounds of clause of 5th Amendment of U.S Constitution.

Did the public administration conditioning for building permit and expansion violate the 5th Amendment's clause of “taking clause or Eminent Domain” and the conditions imposed by public administration does aligns with requirements with related proposed development program of government which held managing drainages and traffic follows in city requiring 10% allotment on each property expansion under Eminent Domain?

Yes (vote 5-4) (Opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist).

The majority of judges believe violation of taking clause of 5th Amendment because City of Tigard does not have conclusive evidences which supports their imposed conditions on Dolan for property allotment. The taking clause of 5th amendment requires that property used for public purpose must be compensated. The implication of imposition by public administration on building permit requires being related with government program or proportionate to government purpose in this regard. Thus, evidences from public administration did not support with development program that walkway/bicycle would help mitigate traffic concession and thus did not require Dolan to sanction her property for building permit. Further, City of Tigard fails to rationalize why public greenway is eminent as opposed to private expansion for same purpose. In all, public administration of city of Tigard fails to support the requirement of essential nexus which must support between legitimate state interest and permit requirements by Appellant and also how permit will benefit city for requirements. The major separate opinions were given by Justice John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter that recommend that burden should be laid on Dolan to prove that actions by public administration of City of Tigard are unjustified. They also believed that local governments' attempt to use land to regulate developments are always put consideration with community interests against property interests. Both judges also believe that majority decision is also contradiction with court's previous jurisprudence within same case which grants local governments to regulate land use. They also attempted to rationalize many business interests that Dolan would have enjoyed by allotting her land to public administration which would cause her to neither pay the maintenance costs for parking and even required to pay property taxes on it.

Case Brief 2

Tahoe -Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 535 U.S. 302, 122 S. Ct. 1465 (2002).

Real estate owners and an association called Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. representing these owners have been affected ...