§Why CasetextPricing

SCHER v. BURKE

Amicus Curiae Brief of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al., California Farm Bureau Federation, and California Cattlemen’s Association

44 Cited authorities

  1. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

    533 U.S. 606 (2001)   Cited 760 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding regulatory takings inquiries are “informed by the purpose of the Takings Clause, which is to prevent the government from ‘forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’ ” (quoting Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49, 80 S.Ct. 1563, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960))

  2. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n

    483 U.S. 825 (1987)   Cited 925 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a development exaction to be constitutional, there must be an "essential nexus" between the valid state interest and the permit condition

  3. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.

    570 U.S. 595 (2013)   Cited 296 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court could not condition the grant of land use permits upon the applicant's funding of offsite mitigation projects on public land

  4. Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

    520 U.S. 725 (1997)   Cited 342 times
    Holding a takings claim ripe where the relevant agency had "finally determined" that the petitioner's land lay entirely within an environmentally sensitive area in which development was not allowed

  5. Chicago, Burlington c. R'D v. Chicago

    166 U.S. 226 (1897)   Cited 999 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits uncompensated takings, but concluding that the court below made no errors of law in assessing just compensation

  6. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California v. Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc.

    41 Cal.4th 954 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing in a related context that before evidence establishing value can be presented to the jury, that evidence "`"must at least be in accordance with the usual minimum evidentiary requirements, and that which is purely speculative, wholly guess work and conjectural, is inadmissible"'"

  7. Mt. San Jacinto v. Superior Court

    40 Cal.4th 648 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 26 times
    Rejecting a party’s argument that California’s quick-take procedures deprive property owners of their constitutional right to just compensation on the ground that " section 1255.260 does not require waiving a claim for greater compensation with withdrawal of the deposit"

  8. Hanshaw v. Long Valley Rd. Assn.

    116 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 22 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding Civ. Code, § 1009 does not abolish implied dedications arising from public nonrecreational use

  9. Pulido v. Pereira

    234 Cal.App.4th 1246 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses

    C072284 03-05-2015 Antonio PULIDO et al., Cross-complainants and Respondents, v. Alfred Robert PEREIRA, Jr., Individually and as Trustee, etc., Cross-defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli and Stephanie J. Finelli,Sacramento, for Cross-defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of William E. Barnes, Mark H. Salyer and William E. Barnes, Sacramento, for Cross-complainants and Respondents. BLEASE, Acting P.J. Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli and Stephanie J. Finelli,Sacramento, for

  10. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz

    2 Cal.3d 29 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 76 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Gion, we noted, "the public use of the land [was] accentuated by the active participation of the city in maintaining the land and helping the public to enjoy it."

  11. Section Amendment V - Rights of Persons

    U.S. Const. amend. V   Cited 19,297 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment

  12. Section 19

    Cal. Const. art. I § 19   Cited 619 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Taking property without just compensation

  13. Section 1009 - Irrevocable offer of dedication

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1009   Cited 40 times
    Limiting implied dedications of public easements to those established prior to March 4, 1972

  14. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,153 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or