{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page 1 LEXSEE 535 U.S. 302 TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., ET AL., PE- TITIONERS v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY ET AL. No. 00-1167 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 535 U.S. 302 ; 122 S. Ct. 1465 ; 152 L. Ed. 2d 517 ; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 3028 ; 70 U.S.L.W. 4260 ; 54 ERC (BNA) 1129 ; 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 681 ; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3495 ; 32 ELR 20627 ; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 203 January 7, 2002, Argued April 23, 2002, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. DISPOSITION: 216 F.3d 764 , affirmed. DECISION: Two moratoria on residential development--that were imposed, for total of about 32 months, by agency while devising comprehensive land-use plan--held not to constitute per se takings requiring compensation under Fifth Amendment . [***text deleted for course purposes***] COUNSEL: Michael M. Berger, Los Angeles, CA, for petitioners. John G. Roberts, Jr., Washington, DC, for respondents. Theodore B. Olson, for United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting re- spondents. JUDGES: STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., and THOMAS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page 2 OPINION BY: STEVENS OPINION [**1470] [***530] [*306] JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. [***LEdHR1A] [1A] [***LEdHR2A] [2A] [***LEdHR3A] [3A] [***LEdHR4A] [4A] [***LEdHR5A] [5A]The question presented is whether a moratorium on development imposed dur- ing the process of devising a comprehensive land-use plan constitutes a per se taking of property re- quiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution . 1 This case actu- ally involves two moratoria ordered by respondent Tahoe Regional [***531] Planning Agency (TRPA) to maintain the status quo while studying the impact of development on Lake Tahoe and designing a strategy for environmentally sound growth. The first, Ordinance 81-5, was effective from August 24, 1981, until August 26, 1983, whereas the second more restrictive Resolution 83-21 was in effect from August 27, 1983, until April 25, 1984. As a result of these two directives, virtu- ally all development on a substantial portion of the property subject to TRPA's jurisdiction was pro- hibited for a period of 32 months. Although the question we decide relates only to that 32-month period, a brief description of the events leading up to the moratoria and a comment on the two per- manent [*307] plans that TRPA adopted thereafter will clarify the narrow scope of our holding. [***LEdHR5B] [5B] 1 Often referred to as the " Just Compensation Clause ," the final Clause of the Fifth Amend- ment provides: " . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensa- tion." It applies to the States as well as the Federal Government. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}