- Posted October 10, 2012
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Court to weigh if payment needed for permit denial
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is agreeing to decide whether a government's refusal to issue a development permit can amount to "taking" private property for which the owner must be paid.
The justices say they will review a Florida Supreme Court decision that sided with a local water management agency in a dispute with a property owner who sought permits to develop land classified as environmentally sensitive.
Negotiations over the permits failed when the owner would not agree to conditions that included reducing the size of his project and paying for work on nearby government-owned land.
In earlier cases, the U.S. high court has required governments to pay for imposing conditions on development.
The case is Koontz v. St. John's River Management District, 11-1447.
Published: Wed, Oct 10, 2012
headlines Oakland County
- Historical: Circuit Court judge has made indelible mark
- ABA amicus brief supports noncitizens’ right to a bond hearing when detention becomes ‘unreasonably prolonged’
- Nessel secures full victory in lawsuit challenging administration’s attack on fair housing protections
- Whitmer announces new automotive jobs, investment in Oakland County
- AG pushes federal government to strengthen rules to combat illegal robocalls
headlines National
- ABA Legal Ed council repeals DEI standard
- Is Perry Mason TV’s most effective lawyer? New study names top 5
- Lawyer who cited paraphrasing as direct quotes in 2nd Circuit brief says AI played a role
- After jury deadlock and mistrial, Lindsay Clancy could face second trial
- Murder, Corruption and RICO in Georgia: Fateful meeting I didn’t want to attend led to courtroom win
- Bad Bunny, Justin Bieber among musical stars facing copyright suit for using reggaeton’s signature beat




