Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hensler v. City of Glendalegreen2 sentences2019(Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 27 [remedy is administrative mandamus].) Caltrans’s position is that it did indeed impose a requirement of dedication of the 1.31-acre strip as a condition for Prout to obtain the encroachment permit, and therefore the four-year limitations period began to run with the 1990 issuance of the permit and filing of the subdivision map. 2019Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1 , held that validity of a decision attaching a condition to approval of a subdivision map must be judicially attacked by a timely petition for writ of administrative mandamus (90 days under Gov. | 2 | 3 |
Nollan v. California Coastal Commissiongreen2 sentences1993We will consider initially the first prong of the Nollan test. “[L]and-use regulation does not effect a taking if it ‘substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests’ and does not ‘den[y] an owner economically viable use of his land’ [citation].” (Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, supra, 483 U.S. at p. 834 [ 97 L.Ed.2d at p. 687 ].) Land-use regulations effect a taking and are, therefore, compensable, if the regulations compel the property owner to suffer even a minute physical invasion of his or her property or the regulations deny the owner of property “all economically beneficial or 1993We will consider initially the first prong of the Nollan test. “[L]and-use regulation does not effect a taking if it ‘substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests’ and does not ‘den[y] an owner economically viable use of his land’ [citation].” (Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, supra, 483 U.S. at p. 834 [ 97 L.Ed.2d at p. 687 ].) Land-use regulations effect a taking and are, therefore, compensable, if the regulations compel the property owner to suffer even a minute physical invasion of his or her property or the regulations deny the owner of property “all economically beneficial or | 2 | 2 |
IOWA ASSUR. CORP. v. City of Indianola, Iowagreen1 sentence2014Hawaii 2008) 573 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1365 (“the first inquiry under the Nollan/Dolan standard is whether the government’s exaction effects a taking”); Iowa Assurance Corp. v. City of lndianola, Iowa (8th Cir. 2011) 650 F.3d 1094, 1098-1099 (Nollan test does not apply to ordinance that did not restrict owners’ right to exclude others from their property). 9 Overflight cases have been analyzed in similar fashion in the federal courts: “[S]ubject to certain narrow exceptions not applicable here, flights by government-owned aircraft at elevations exceeding the minimum safe altitudes of flight establis | 1 | 1 |
Alva A. Aaron v. The United States. Peter Andersen v. The United Statesgreen1 sentence2014Hawaii 2008) 573 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1365 (“the first inquiry under the Nollan/Dolan standard is whether the government’s exaction effects a taking”); Iowa Assurance Corp. v. City of lndianola, Iowa (8th Cir. 2011) 650 F.3d 1094, 1098-1099 (Nollan test does not apply to ordinance that did not restrict owners’ right to exclude others from their property). 9 Overflight cases have been analyzed in similar fashion in the federal courts: “[S]ubject to certain narrow exceptions not applicable here, flights by government-owned aircraft at elevations exceeding the minimum safe altitudes of flight establis | 1 | 1 |
Kamaole Pointe Development LP v. County of Mauigreen1 sentence2014Hawaii 2008) 573 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1365 (“the first inquiry under the Nollan/Dolan standard is whether the government’s exaction effects a taking”); Iowa Assurance Corp. v. City of lndianola, Iowa (8th Cir. 2011) 650 F.3d 1094, 1098-1099 (Nollan test does not apply to ordinance that did not restrict owners’ right to exclude others from their property). 9 Overflight cases have been analyzed in similar fashion in the federal courts: “[S]ubject to certain narrow exceptions not applicable here, flights by government-owned aircraft at elevations exceeding the minimum safe altitudes of flight establis | 1 | 1 |
Drennen v. County of Venturagreen2 sentences2014(Drennen v. County of Ventura (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 84, 88 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 907 ].) 11 It has long been recognized in the aviation context that the presence of an existing aviation easement does not preclude a future takings claim based on expanded or more onerous overflights. 2014(Drennen v. County of Ventura (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 84, 88 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 907 ].) 11 It has long been recognized in the aviation context that the presence of an existing aviation easement does not preclude a future takings claim based on expanded or more onerous overflights. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rossco Holdings Inc. v. State of California
green
2 sentences2019To the contrary, a Nollan challenge merely calls for the landowner to establish invalidity of the condition the public entity sought to impose, and a landowner cannot challenge a condition “imposed upon the granting of a permit after acquiescence in the condition by either specifically agreeing to the condition or failing to challenge its validity, and accepting the benefits afforded by the permit.” (Rosco Holdings Inc. v. State of California (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 642, 654 .) Here, in 1990, Caltrans imposed the condition, Prout accepted it by filing a subdivision map that it was “in the proces 2019To the contrary, a Nollan challenge merely calls for the landowner to establish invalidity of the condition the public entity sought to impose, and a landowner cannot challenge a condition “imposed upon the granting of a permit after acquiescence in the condition by either specifically agreeing to the condition or failing to challenge its validity, and accepting the benefits afforded by the permit.” (Rosco Holdings Inc. v. State of California (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 642, 654 .) Here, in 1990, Caltrans imposed the condition, Prout accepted it by filing a subdivision map that it was “in the proces | 3 | 2018–2019 |
Aaron v. United States
green
1 sentence2014Hawaii 2008) 573 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1365 (“the first inquiry under the Nollan/Dolan standard is whether the government’s exaction effects a taking”); Iowa Assurance Corp. v. City of lndianola, Iowa (8th Cir. 2011) 650 F.3d 1094, 1098-1099 (Nollan test does not apply to ordinance that did not restrict owners’ right to exclude others from their property). 9 Overflight cases have been analyzed in similar fashion in the federal courts: “[S]ubject to certain narrow exceptions not applicable here, flights by government-owned aircraft at elevations exceeding the minimum safe altitudes of flight establis | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Goodman v. United States
green
1 sentence2014Hawaii 2008) 573 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1365 (“the first inquiry under the Nollan/Dolan standard is whether the government’s exaction effects a taking”); Iowa Assurance Corp. v. City of lndianola, Iowa (8th Cir. 2011) 650 F.3d 1094, 1098-1099 (Nollan test does not apply to ordinance that did not restrict owners’ right to exclude others from their property). 9 Overflight cases have been analyzed in similar fashion in the federal courts: “[S]ubject to certain narrow exceptions not applicable here, flights by government-owned aircraft at elevations exceeding the minimum safe altitudes of flight establis | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
green
2 sentences1993We will consider initially the first prong of the Nollan test. “[L]and-use regulation does not effect a taking if it ‘substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests’ and does not ‘den[y] an owner economically viable use of his land’ [citation].” (Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, supra, 483 U.S. at p. 834 [ 97 L.Ed.2d at p. 687 ].) Land-use regulations effect a taking and are, therefore, compensable, if the regulations compel the property owner to suffer even a minute physical invasion of his or her property or the regulations deny the owner of property “all economically beneficial or 1993We will consider initially the first prong of the Nollan test. “[L]and-use regulation does not effect a taking if it ‘substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests’ and does not ‘den[y] an owner economically viable use of his land’ [citation].” (Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, supra, 483 U.S. at p. 834 [ 97 L.Ed.2d at p. 687 ].) Land-use regulations effect a taking and are, therefore, compensable, if the regulations compel the property owner to suffer even a minute physical invasion of his or her property or the regulations deny the owner of property “all economically beneficial or | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Casella v. City of Morgan Hill
green
2 sentences1992California courts have previously upheld such rent control provisions as legitimate, rational exercises of the police power, because they are “ ‘reasonably calculated to eliminate excessive rents and at the same time provide *551 landlords with a just and reasonable return on their property.’ [Citation.]” (Casella v. City of Morgan Hill, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 56 .) Sandpiper argues that under the Nollan test, supra, this ordinance does not substantially advance its purpose of maintaining low to moderate income housing. 1992California courts have previously upheld such rent control provisions as legitimate, rational exercises of the police power, because they are “ ‘reasonably calculated to eliminate excessive rents and at the same time provide *551 landlords with a just and reasonable return on their property.’ [Citation.]” (Casella v. City of Morgan Hill, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 56 .) Sandpiper argues that under the Nollan test, supra, this ordinance does not substantially advance its purpose of maintaining low to moderate income housing. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.