The room where it happened.
We’re not going to say much about the California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. C093682 (July 29, 2025), which is back in the California court system after remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, because it is one of ours.
Here’s the bottom line:
Upon further analysis as directed by the Supreme Court, we now conclude that the challenged permit condition (TIM fee) does not constitute an unlawful monetary exaction under the Nollan/Dolan test. The legislatively formulated generally applicable impact fee is not an unconstitutional condition imposed on land use in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. Accordingly, we again affirm the judgment.
Slip op. at 5.
We don’t necessarily agree 100% with our colleague Ben Rubin’s assessment, but do urge you to read his piece, “California Court of Appeal Confirms Legislatively Enacted Development Impact Fee.”
In lieu of our usual deep analysis, we’ll just give you some photos which we took on the day of the arguments in Sacramento. And a note: this one isn’t likely over.
Mr. and Mrs. Sheetz on the morning of the arguments,
with our PLF colleague Brian Hodges, who argued the case.
Some nice very California-y detail on the Third District courthouse
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. C093682 (Cal. App. July 29, 2025)