George Sheetz, Petitioner v. County of El Dorado, California
Case Number:
22-1074
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Firms
- Abbott & Kindermann
- Akin Gump
- Baker Botts
- Coblentz Patch
- Covington & Burling
- Jones Day
- McKinley Conger
- Pillsbury Winthrop
- Rutan & Tucker
- Shute Mihaly
- Vinson & Elkins
- Zacks & Freedman
Companies
- Atlantic Legal Foundation Inc.
- California State Association of Counties
- Cato Institute
- National Association of Clean Water Agencies
- National Association of Realtors
- Pacific Legal Foundation
- Texas Public Policy Foundation
Sectors & Industries:
-
April 12, 2024
Justices Back Property Owner In Dispute Over Permit Fees
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that a $23,420 local traffic impact fee charged to a California property owner's rural manufactured home isn't exempt from scrutiny as a Fifth Amendment taking simply because the charge is allowed by legislation.
-
January 09, 2024
A Taking Or Just A Fee? Justices Seek To Make Distinction
U.S. Supreme Court justices adopted a skeptical line of questioning Tuesday in response to arguments that government permit fees constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment in a case that could have broad implications for American land use planning.
-
January 05, 2024
Up Next At High Court: Court Notices, Fees & No Fly List
The U.S. Supreme Court returns Monday to kick off a new calendar year by hearing arguments over the proper way to notify migrants of immigration court removal procedures, the constitutionality of state legislature-mandated general impact fees and whether prosecutors can present substitute expert witnesses at criminal trials.
-
November 13, 2023
Calif. Property Owner Argues For Scrutiny For Gov't Fees
Attorneys for a California property owner argued in a U.S. Supreme Court brief Monday that the court should rule that legislatively approved development fees must bear an "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" to a project's impact on the public.