Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
United States Supreme Court
535 U.S. 302 (2002)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
The City of Tahoe created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (agency) (defendant) to develop a comprehensive land-use plan to regulate the economic impact of development on the Tahoe environment. While the plan was being developed, the agency enacted two moratoriums on development so it could study the impact of this activity on the Tahoe Basin. The combined effect of these two moratoriums was to prohibit all development on sensitive areas of land on the California side of the Tahoe Basin for 32 months and to prohibit development of sensitive lands on the Nevada side of the Basin for eight months. The Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. (plaintiff) filed suit against the agency in federal district court on behalf of over 2,400 landowners in the Tahoe Basin and other sensitive areas on the grounds that the moratoriums constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation of the landowner’s property while they were imposed. The district court held that the moratoriums constituted a taking, but the court of appeals reversed on the grounds that because the moratoriums had only a temporary impact on the landowners’ economic interest in the properties, no categorical taking occurred. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Rehnquist, C.J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
