|
|
MacDonald Et Al. v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340 (1986)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
MacDonald Et Al. v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340 (1986)
MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo No. 84-2015 Argued March 26, 1986 Decided June 25, 1986 477 U.S. 340
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD
APPELLATE DISTRICT
Syllabus
Appellant submitted a proposal to the Yolo County Planning Commission to subdivide certain property into 159 single-family and multifamily residential lots. The Commission rejected the proposal, and the County Board of Supervisors affirmed on the grounds that the proposal failed to provide adequate public street access, sewer services, water supplies, and police protection. Appellant then filed an action in California Superior Court, alleging that appellee county and city restricted the property in question to agricultural use by denying all subdivision applications, and thereby appropriated the "entire economic use" of the property for the sole purpose of providing a public, open-space buffer. Appellant sought declaratory and monetary relief. The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, holding that appellant’s factual allegations were insufficient and that monetary damages for inverse condemnation were foreclosed by Agins v. City of Tiburon, 24 Cal.3d 266, 598 P.2d 25, aff’d, 447 U.S. 255. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied appellant’s petition for hearing.
Held: Absent a final and authoritative determination by the County Planning Commission as to how it will apply the regulations at issue to the property in question, this Court cannot determine whether a "taking" has occurred or whether the county failed to provide "just compensation." Without knowing the nature and extent of permitted development, this Court cannot adjudicate the constitutionality of the regulations that purport to limit it. Pp. 348-353.
Affirmed.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., joined and in Parts I, II, and III of which POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 353. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which POWELL, J., joined, post, p. 364.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," MacDonald Et Al. v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340 (1986) in 477 U.S. 340 477 U.S. 342. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CI1WHEHEXIQLWZW.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." MacDonald Et Al. v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340 (1986), in 477 U.S. 340, page 477 U.S. 342. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CI1WHEHEXIQLWZW.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in MacDonald Et Al. v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340 (1986). cited in 1986, 477 U.S. 340, pp.477 U.S. 342. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CI1WHEHEXIQLWZW.
|