In Lambert v. City County of San Francisco (529 US 1045 [2000]), he and Justice Thomas joined Justice Scalia's dissent from a denial of certiorari to consider whether Nollan/Dolan applies to the denial of a permit because an exaction is not met.
Summary of this case from Smith v. Town of Mendon1997
Reprinted without change in the Review Granted Opinions Pamphlet to permit tracking pending review and disposition by the Supreme Court.
In Lambert v. City County of San Francisco (529 US 1045 [2000]), he and Justice Thomas joined Justice Scalia's dissent from a denial of certiorari to consider whether Nollan/Dolan applies to the denial of a permit because an exaction is not met.
Summary of this case from Smith v. Town of MendonIn Lambert v. City County of San Francisco, 57 Cal.App.4th 1172, 67 Cal. Rptr.2d 562, 569 (1997), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1045, 120 S.Ct. 1549, 146 L.Ed.2d 360 (2000), the court concluded that because the condition was rejected "neither a property right nor money was in fact taken... there is [therefore] nothing requiring review under the Nollan/Dolan/Ehrlich standard."
Summary of this case from St. Johns River Water v. KoontzFull title:Lambert v. City and County of San Francisco
Court:Court of Appeal of California
Date published: Jan 1, 1997
E.g., Golden Gate Hotel Ass'n. v. City and County of San Francisco, 18 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1994), on remand,…
St. Johns River Water v. KoontzSee Fenster, 92 Cal. L. Rev. at 639. In Lambert v. City County of San Francisco, 57 Cal.App.4th 1172, 67…