Article : are critical area buffers unconstitutional?

August 31, 2017 | By BRIAN HODGES

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 ...


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

April 28, 2017 | By BRIAN HODGES

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 … ...


Fighting to protect San Juan property owners from land grab

May 14, 2015 | By BRIAN HODGES

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 … ...


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. … ...


Did the government push too far in Koontz?

January 22, 2013 | By BRIAN HODGES

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 tha ...


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’ ...


Koontz oral argument : the balance of Dolan

January 14, 2013 | By JONATHAN WOOD

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 … ...


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

January 10, 2013 | By JONATHAN WOOD

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 … ...


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 t ...