Americans With Disability, public accommodations
Department of Justice Disability, public accommodations
Americans With Disability, private accommodations
58. In CASE 18.3 Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013), plaintiff Koontz purchased 14.9 acres of
undeveloped land classified as “wetlands.” The State of Florida found Koontz’s land-use permit proposal (which included
land and cash) to develop the land inadequate and imposed more “conditions” to the permit. Koontz found these
conditions were excessive under the Nolan and Dollan cases, and filed suit. The U.S. Supreme Court __________ the
Florida Supreme Court, holding that the government’s demand for property (and cash) for land under the __________
requirements amounted to a(n) __________ of Koontz’s land.
affirmed, Kelo, unconstitutional taking
reversed, Nolan and Dollan, unconstitutional taking
reversed, Kelo, nonconforming use
affirmed, Nolan and Dollan, unconstitutional taking
United States – BUSPROG: – ANALYTIC
18–13e Conditions and Unconstitutional Takings
59. Susie has a great farm bordering on a river and plans to build a house on a cliff overlooking the water. She was also
considering building a couple of guest cottages to rent to vacationers. One day a land conservatory came to Susie and
asked her to designate the land as a pristine area whereby no development or building could take place. Susie told them to
get lost. The next thing she knew, the jurisdiction in which she lived had passed a regulation permanently prohibiting
riverfront owners in her area from building any structures within one half mile of the river. There had been no such
restriction in her state or county previously, and Susie suspects that the regulation is part of a plot to force landowners to
agree to the request of the land conservatory. Susie tells her builder to go ahead with plans to construct the home because
the government cannot take land through excessive regulation. Is Susie correct that the government cannot take land
through excessive regulation?
Susie is incorrect although if the government action constitutes a taking, compensation to the landowner must
be provided.
Susie is incorrect, and no compensation to the landowner is required.
Susie is incorrect although she would only be entitled to compensation for any lost profits she can establish.
Susie is correct, and the regulation would be overturned by a federal court.
United States – BUSPROG: – ANALYTIC
b
1
United States – BUSPROG: – ANALYTIC
DISC: – AICPA: BB-Legal
18–14 Physical Accessibility to Commercial Facilities and Public Accoomodations.
Blooms: Analysis