Citation network
Dolan Vs. City of Tigard
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 23, 1994
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Dolan v. CitySearch
-
Of Tigard - 512 U.S. 374 (1994) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Dolan V. CitySearch
-
exists between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition. Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Ore. 110, 854 P. 2d 437 (1993). We granted certiorari to resolve a question left open by our decision in Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
transportation. Ibid. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioner's contention that in Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
States Constitution, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chi-Search
-
Armstrong v. UnitedSearch
-
Kaiser Aetna v. UnitedSearch
-
land use planning has been sustained against constitutional challenge as long ago as our decision in Village of Euclid v. AmblerSearch
-
Amendment does make the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the States, see Penn Central Transp. Co. v. NewSearch
-
Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 825 , 827 (1987). Nor is there any doubt that these cases have relied upon Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
which of course is made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, see Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
Agins v. CitySearch
-
benefit conferred by the government where the benefit sought has little or no relationship to the property. See Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
Pickering v. BoardSearch
-
store on the lot. Petitioner assuredly is able to derive some economic use from her property. See, e. g., Lucas v. SouthSearch
-
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. NewSearch
-
an out-and-out plan of extortion.''' Ibid., quoting J. E. D. Associates, Inc. v. AtkinsonSearch
-
projected impact of petitioner's proposed development. Nollan, supra, at 834, quoting Penn Central Transp. Co. v. NewSearch
-
between the required dedication and the proposed development seem to suffice. See, e. g., Billings Properties, Inc. v. YellowstoneSearch
-
Jenad, Inc. v. ScarsdaleSearch
-
test. The Supreme Court of Illinois first developed this test in Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank v. MountSearch
-
test has now been adopted by a minority of other courts. See, e. g., J. E. D. Associates, Inc. v. AtkinsonSearch
-
Divan Builders, Inc. v. PlanningSearch
-
dedication and the impact of the proposed development. Typical is the Supreme Court of Nebraska's opinion in Simpson v. NorthSearch
-
Some form of the reasonable relationship test has been adopted in many other jurisdictions. See, e. g., Jordan v. MenomoneeSearch
-
Collis v. BloomingtonSearch
-
McKain v. ToledoSearch
-
Frank Ansuini, Inc. v. CranstonSearch
-
College Station v. TurtleSearch
-
Call v. WestSearch
-
see also Parks v. WatsonSearch
-
the regulation to prove that it constitutes an arbitrary regulation of property rights. See, e. g., Village of Euclid v. AmblerSearch
-
city. See Nollan, 483 U. S., at 836. This conclusion is not, as he suggests, undermined by our decision in Moore v. EastSearch
-
it from constitutional challenge on the ground that it violates a provision of the Bill of Rights. In Marshall v. Barlow'sSearch
-
in order to detect OSHA violations violated the Fourth Amendment. See also Air Pollution Variance Bd. of Colo. v. WesternSearch
-
U. S. 691 (1987). And in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. PublicSearch
-
character and, therefore, her right to exclude others is compromised. Brief for Respondent 41, quoting United States v. OritoSearch
-
PruneYard Shopping Center v. RobinsSearch
-
requirement announced in Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 825 (1987), because they serve the legitimate interests in minimizing floods and traffic con- 1 Cf. Moore v. EastSearch
-
requirement. See, e. g., Simpson v. NorthSearch
-
J. E. D. Associates, Inc. v. AtkinsonSearch
-
test established by Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank v. MountSearch
-
legislature had decided that the subdivision at issue created the need for a park or parks. Billings Properties, Inc. v. YellowstoneSearch
-
Syllabus DOLAN v. CITYSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial