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.
