Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Nollan_v._California_Coastal_Commission an entity of type: Thing
In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court reviewed a regulation under which the California Coastal Commission required that an offer to dedicate a lateral public easement along the Nollans' beachfront lot be recorded on the chain of title to the property as a condition of approval of a permit to demolish an existing bungalow and replace it with a three-bedroom house. The Coastal Commission had asserted that the public-easement condition was imposed to promote the legitimate state interest of diminishing the "blockage of the view of the ocean" caused by construction of the larger house. The Court held that in evaluating such claims, it must be determined whether an "essential nexus" exists between a legitimate state interest and the per
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Nollan et ux. v. California Coastal Commission
xsd:integer
22322480
xsd:integer
1064934646
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Brennan
rdf:langString
Blackmun
rdf:langString
Marshall
rdf:langString
Blackmun
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, White, Powell, O'Connor
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
825
xsd:integer
483
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-30
xsd:integer
1987
rdf:langString
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-26
xsd:integer
1987
rdf:langString
Nollan et ux. v. California Coastal Commission
rdf:langString
A governmental exaction has to be substantially related to a legitimate government interest and there must be a nexus between the exaction and that interest.
rdf:langString
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
rdf:langString
Scalia
rdf:langString
In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court reviewed a regulation under which the California Coastal Commission required that an offer to dedicate a lateral public easement along the Nollans' beachfront lot be recorded on the chain of title to the property as a condition of approval of a permit to demolish an existing bungalow and replace it with a three-bedroom house. The Coastal Commission had asserted that the public-easement condition was imposed to promote the legitimate state interest of diminishing the "blockage of the view of the ocean" caused by construction of the larger house. The Court held that in evaluating such claims, it must be determined whether an "essential nexus" exists between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition. In a controversial 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that a requirement by the CCC was a taking in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
11583