
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
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
1 / 1
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
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.