(plaintiff, now deceased, sought permits from defendant to develop portion of property; state law required permits because building to occur on wetland area and plaintiff required under state law to offset environmental damage; plaintiff offered to mitigate by deeding to defendant a conservation easement on approximately three-fourths of plaintiff's property; proposal rejected and development approved only if plaintiff reduced size of development and deeded to defendant on balance of property or have contractors make improvements to defendant's wetlands miles from plaintiff's property; plaintiff challenged defendant's conduct as violation of police power and constituted a taking; trial court determined unconstitutional taking had occurred; state Supreme Court reversed because defendant had denied the permit application and because money demand cannot give rise to takings claim; on further review, U.S. Supreme Court reversed state Supreme Court opinion; unconstitutional conditions doctrine applicable as espoused in Nollan and Dolan and make no distinction between conditions precedent and conditions subsequent and makes no difference that none of plaintiff's property was actually taken; defendant engaged in unconstitutional extortion; monetary extractions are subject to Nollan and Dolan takings scrutiny).
CALT does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. CALT's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.