Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Dolan v. City of Tigard: Due Process and the Takings Clause, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

The landmark supreme court case of dolan v. City of tigard (1994), where the court ruled that the city's conditions for granting a permit to expand a store and pave a parking lot, requiring the dedication of land for a greenway and a pedestrian/bicycle path, violated the 5th amendment's takings clause as absorbed by the 14th amendment's due process clause. The court found that the city did not provide sufficient evidence that the requirements would alleviate traffic congestion or the need for a public greenway, and failed to demonstrate an essential nexus between the permit conditions and a legitimate state interest.

Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research

2011/2012

Uploaded on 12/13/2012

yuva
yuva 🇮🇳

5

(3)

55 documents

1 / 1

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Dolan v. City of Tigard
512 U.S. 374 (1994)
Docket Number: 93-518
Abstract
Argued:
March 23, 1994
Decided:
June 24, 1994
Subjects:
Due Process: Takings Clause
Facts of the Case
Florence Dolan wanted a permit from the City of Tigard to expand her store
and pave her parking lot. The city agreed to grant her permit on the
condition that she dedicate part of her land for (1) a greenway along a
nearby creek to help alleviate runoff from the pavement, and (2) a
pedestrian/bicycle path to relieve traffic congestion from the city's growing
business district.
Question Presented
Did the city's conditions for the permit violate the 5th Amendment's
"takings" clause as absorbed by the 14th Amendment's due process clause?
Conclusion
Yes. The Court ruled that the city did not present conclusive evidence that
the walkway/bicyle path would reduce traffic congestion, and so could not
require Dolan to give up her property as a condition of the permit. In
addition, the city did not explain why a public greenway was necessary, as
opposed to a private one. There must be an "essential nexus" between a
legitimate state interest and the permit requirements (Nollan v. California
Coastal Commission), and the city failed to demonstrate that the benefits
would justify the requirements.

Partial preview of the text

Download Dolan v. City of Tigard: Due Process and the Takings Clause and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Dolan v. City of Tigard

512 U.S. 374 (1994)

Docket Number: 93-

Abstract

Argued: March 23, 1994 Decided: June 24, 1994

Subjects: Due Process:^ Takings Clause

Facts of the Case

Florence Dolan wanted a permit from the City of Tigard to expand her store and pave her parking lot. The city agreed to grant her permit on the condition that she dedicate part of her land for (1) a greenway along a nearby creek to help alleviate runoff from the pavement, and (2) a pedestrian/bicycle path to relieve traffic congestion from the city's growing business district.

Question Presented

Did the city's conditions for the permit violate the 5th Amendment's "takings" clause as absorbed by the 14th Amendment's due process clause?

Conclusion

Yes. The Court ruled that the city did not present conclusive evidence that the walkway/bicyle path would reduce traffic congestion, and so could not require Dolan to give up her property as a condition of the permit. In addition, the city did not explain why a public greenway was necessary, as opposed to a private one. There must be an "essential nexus" between a legitimate state interest and the permit requirements (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission), and the city failed to demonstrate that the benefits would justify the requirements.