About: Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District   Goto Sponge  NotDistinct  Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FKoontz_v._St._Johns_River_Water_Management_District

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 568 U.S. ___ (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, even if the condition consists of a requirement to pay money, and even if the permit is denied for failure to agree to the condition. It was the first case in which monetary exactions were found to be unconstitutional conditions.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
rdfs:comment
  • Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 568 U.S. ___ (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, even if the condition consists of a requirement to pay money, and even if the permit is denied for failure to agree to the condition. It was the first case in which monetary exactions were found to be unconstitutional conditions.
sameAs
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
foaf:name
  • Coy A. Koontz, Jr., Petitioner v. St. Johns River Water Management District.
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
prov:wasDerivedFrom
has abstract
  • Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 568 U.S. ___ (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, even if the condition consists of a requirement to pay money, and even if the permit is denied for failure to agree to the condition. It was the first case in which monetary exactions were found to be unconstitutional conditions.
ArgueDate
  • --01-15
ArgueYear
DecideDate
  • --06-25
DecideYear
Dissent
  • Kagan
Holding
  • When a discretionary land-use permit is denied because the applicant declines to pay for improvements to other, unrelated property, a challenge to the constitutionality of the denial must be evaluated under the "essential nexus" standard of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and the "rough proportionality" requirement of Dolan v. City of Tigard.
JoinDissent
  • Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor
JoinMajority
  • Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas
LawsApplied
Litigants
  • Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
OralArgument
Prior
  • 25920.0
SCOTUS
USPage
  • ___
USVol
majority
  • Alito
ParallelCitations
http://purl.org/voc/vrank#hasRank
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git21 as of Mar 09 2019


Alternative Linked Data Documents: iSPARQL | ODE     Content Formats:       RDF       ODATA       Microdata      About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3230 as of May 1 2019, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc25), Single-Server Edition (61 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2019 OpenLink Software