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.
5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist.green1 sentence2024In the context of land use and development permits, whether there is an unconstitutional taking is determined under the “Nollan/Dolan test.” Id. at 595, 604 (referring to Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)); see also Am. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 709032green1 sentence1997In the absence of any such authority, we question whether the Nollan/Dolan analysis applies to this situation at all. *486 Indeed, courts and commentators have suggested that this particular analysis is “limited to the context of development exactions where there is a physical taking or its equivalent.” Clajon Production Corp. v. Petera, 70 F.3d 1566, 1578 (10th Cir.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Randy Martin v. Shelter General Insurance Companygreen1 sentence1997See also Harris v. City of Wichita, 862 F.Supp. 287, 294 (D.Kan.1994), aff'd, 74 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir.1996); Christopher J. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kan.green1 sentence1997See also Harris v. City of Wichita, 862 F.Supp. 287, 294 (D.Kan.1994), aff'd, 74 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir.1996); Christopher J. | 1 | 1 |
Ehrlich v. City of Culver Citygreen2 sentences1995See Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2731 , 129 L.Ed.2d 854 (1994). 1995See Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2731 , 129 L.Ed.2d 854 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Shalala v. Ohio State Universitygreen2 sentences1995See Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2731 , 129 L.Ed.2d 854 (1994). 1995See Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2731 , 129 L.Ed.2d 854 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dolan v. City of Tigard
green
2 sentences2024In the context of land use and development permits, whether there is an unconstitutional taking is determined under the “Nollan/Dolan test.” Id. at 595, 604 (referring to Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)); see also Am. 1995In deciding this question Dolan held that the necessary connection required by the Fifth Amendment is "rough proportionality." Dolan, 512 U.S. at ___ -___, 114 S.Ct. at 2319-20 . | 2 | 1995–2024 |
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
green
2 sentences2024In the context of land use and development permits, whether there is an unconstitutional taking is determined under the “Nollan/Dolan test.” Id. at 595, 604 (referring to Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)); see also Am. 2018Nollan held that a required dedication of a public easement across private property to obtain a building permit was a taking. 483 U.S. at 831 . | 2 | 2018–2024 |
Transamerica Title Insurance Co. v. City of Tucson
green
1 sentence2024Co. v. City of Tucson, 23 Ariz. App. 385, 386 , 390–91 (1975) (pre-Nollan/Dolan test case finding an unconstitutional taking where city conditioned rezoning on dedication of land for additional right-of-way but there was no evidence the rezoning would cause appreciable extra burden). ¶21 Assuming without deciding that the condition here implicated application of the Nollan/Dolan test,4 we find no error in the superior court’s determination that the test was satisfied. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Third & Catalina Associates v. City of Phoenix
green
1 sentence2024But because a new permit was required here upon 4 ADOT relies on Third & Catalina Assocs. v. City of Phoenix, 182 Ariz. 203 (App. 1994), to argue that the Nollan/Dolan test does not apply. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hedden v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
green
2 sentences1997Id. 50 Cal.Rptr.2d at 251 , 911 P.2d at 438 . 1997Id. 50 Cal.Rptr.2d at 251 , 911 P.2d at 438 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Ehrlich v. City of Culver City
green
2 sentences1997Id. 50 Cal.Rptr.2d at 251 , 911 P.2d at 438 . 1997Id. 50 Cal.Rptr.2d at 251 , 911 P.2d at 438 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.