Here are two more amicus curiae briefs in n Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012).
That’s the case asking whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only to exactions for land, or whether they are generally-applicable tests. We filed our amicus brief last week (posted here), and the other amicus briefs in support of the property owner/petitioner are here.
- Brief of Amicus Curiae of The National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center – “With every delay, landowners become more and more exasperated. The sense of urgency is even greater for individuals of modest means, who have tied up much of their personal assets into their property. For a small business owner or a developer, delays are all the more difficult to bear because their livelihood is at stake.”
- Brief Amicus Curiea of Hillcrest Property, LLP in Support of Petitioner – The lower courts’ “confusion and uncertainty encourages just the sort of extortionate leveraging of the police power Nollan and Dolan were intended to prevent, while impaling property owners like Mr. Koontz on a Morton’s Fork. Their choice is between either an unreasonable delay in the permit approval process followed by years or decades of litigation, or acquiescence in an uncompensated taking — both of which may jeopardize the economic feasability of the proposed project.”
We’ll post any more briefs that come our way.