| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
''Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District'', , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of ''Nollan v. California Coastal Commission'' and ''Dolan v. City of Tigard'', even if the condition consists of a requirement to pay money, and even if the permit is denied for failure to agree to the condition. It was the first case in which monetary exactions were found to be unconstitutional conditions.
== Background ==
Petitioner Coy Koontz applied to the St. Johns River Water Management District for a permit to develop 3.7 acres of wetlands under the District's jurisdiction.〔(Eric D. Hageman, Case Comment, ''The Factual Reality of Koontz v. St. Johns'', 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. Online 54 (2015). )〕 Koontz offered to mitigate the loss of wetlands by conveying to the District a conservation easement over 11 acres of adjacent land. The District declined Koontz's mitigation offer, instead proposing that Koontz either reduce the size of his development to one acre, or pay for improvements to unrelated property owned by the District several miles away. Koontz responded by filing suit against the District in state court.〔''Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District'', No. 11-1447, slip op. at 2-4.〕
Following an initial dismissal, appeal, and remand, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the District's demand for offsite mitigation violated ''Nollan v. California Coastal Commission'' and ''Dolan v. City of Tigard'', since the improvements to the District's property lacked either an essential nexus or rough proportionality to the environmental impact of Koontz's proposed development. The state appellate court affirmed,〔''St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz'', 5 So. 3d 8 (Fla. App. 2009).〕 but the Supreme Court of Florida reversed, holding that ''Nollan'' and ''Dolan'' did not apply because (1) Koontz's permit was denied, rather than granted subject to the unconstitutional condition, and (2) the District sought money rather than a conveyance of real property as a condition to issuing the permit.〔''St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz'', 77 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 2011).〕 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the applicability of ''Nollan'' and ''Dolan'' under these circumstances.〔''Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District'', 133 S.Ct. 420 (2012).〕
Koontz was represented by Paul J. Beard, II, of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Amicus briefs in support of Koontz were filed by the American Civil Rights Union, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, and six other parties.〔Supreme Court Docket, Case No. 11-1147. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/11-1447.htm)〕 The St. Johns River Water Management District was represented by Paul R. Q. Wolfson. Amicus briefs in support of the District were filed by the Solicitor General of the United States, the American Planning Association, the National Governors Association, and other public entities and officials.〔Id.〕 Deputy General Edwin Kneedler argued for the United States as amicus curiae in support of the District.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|