Blog

Filter By:
Sort By:

Tag: Koontz v. St. John’s

August 31, 2017

Article: are critical area buffers unconstitutional?

Today, the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law published my article, Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions. Although the article focuses on developments in Washington state law, it contains arguments relevant to property rights practitioners elsewhere. For example, the article explains ...

April 28, 2017

Supreme Court directs West Hollywood to respond to PLF’s legislative exactions challenge

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the City of West Hollywood to respond to PLF's certiorari petition in the legislative exactions case, 616 Croft Ave, LLC v. City of West Hollywood. As you may recall, the 616 Croft Ave. petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review a California Court of Appeal decision ...

May 14, 2015

Fighting to protect San Juan property owners from land grab

On June 2, 2015, Division I of the Washington State Court of Appeals is set to hear oral argument in the first state case seeking to limit government's ability to coerce property from land use applicants since PLF's landmark victory in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. (2013). The case, Common Sense Alliance ...

June 25, 2013

PLF Statement on Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District Victory

Sacramento, CA; June 25, 2013:  The U.S. Supreme Court today handed a victory to all property owners by ruling in favor of Pacific Legal Foundation's client, Coy Koontz Jr., in his constitutional challenge to the heavy, unjustified demands that his family faced as a condition for a building permit. The case is Koontz v. St. ...

January 22, 2013

Did the government push too far in Koontz?

With all of the talk about last week's oral argument in Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management District, there has been surprisingly little said about the radical position taken by the state and federal governments.  As discussed here and here, state, local, and federal governments filed briefs asking the Supreme Court to rule that ...

January 15, 2013

Koontz oral argument: Pacific Legal Foundation's legacy of Supreme Court success

Post coauthored by Lana Harfoush, Christina Martin and Jonathan Wood The countdown is over!  Today Paul J. Beard II argued Pacific Legal Foundation’s Koontz case before the United States Supreme Court.  Koontz is a monumental case for PLF and property owners nationwide, but it’s far from PLF’s first visit to the country’ ...

January 14, 2013

Koontz oral argument: the balance of Dolan

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in PLF’s property rights case, Koontz.  In a series of posts last week, we scrutinized the arguments being made and argued that the Supreme Court precedents set out in Nollan and Dolan should apply to Koontz.  On Friday, we took an in-depth look at Nollan.  This ...

January 14, 2013

Paul Beard and Coy Koontz on Fox News

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com ...

January 10, 2013

Koontz oral argument: what do state and local governments think the Takings Clause protects?

In Koontz, governments across the country argue that the Takings Clause only applies to real property and not to demands for money.  But that argument can't be squared with the text of the Takings Clause which reads: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. As you can see from its ...

January 08, 2013

Koontz oral argument: the Takings Clause protects “private property,” not just real property

Is money a kind of private property?  In PLF's Koontz case, which attorney Paul Beard II will argue at the U.S. Supreme Court on the 15th, one significant issue is whether the Supreme Court’s previous decisions  in Nollan and Dolan apply to monetary exactions.  Those two cases protect property owners from unlawful permit conditions that a ...