All Cases Listed Alphabetically

Bagford v. Ephraim City–Although a contract may be a type of property right, there is no taking if a public agency does not renew a contract.

Bahr v. Imus–Explains rules applicable to settling boundary disputes.

B.A.M. Development, LLC v. Salt Lake County (“BAM I”)–Applying the rough proportionality test to exactions.

B.A.M. Development, LLC v. Salt Lake County (“BAM II”)–Rough proportionality analysis compares the expense to the property owner with the cost to address the development’s impact.

B.A.M. Development, LLC v. Salt Lake County (“BAM III”)–Discussion of how governmental expenses factor into rough proportionality analysis.

Banberry v. City of South Jordan–Reasonableness of Impact Fees.

Berman v. Parker–Land use may be regulated for aesthetic purposes.

Bingham v. Roosevelt City–Discusses what constitutes a “protectable property right.”

Bountiful City v. DeLuca–Regulation of property for the public good becomes a taking if the regulation deprives owner of a significant amount of economic value.

Bradley v. Payson City–Standards of review for legislative and administrative decisions.

Call v. City of West Jordan— (Two Cases) Exactions must be reasonably attributable to development activity.

The Carpet Barn v. UDOT–Severance damages may include loss of access or parking.

Carrier v. Lindquist–Abutting landowners have right of access to public road.

Cedar Mountain Environmental, Inc. v. Tooele County–Standing requirements under LUDMA are the same as traditional and alternative standing tests.

City of Grantsville v. Tooele City–Establishing standing, or the right to pursue a claim in court.

City of Hildale v. Cooke–Just Compensation is based on a property’s highest and best use.

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey–Compensation is the remedy for a property taking.

Colman v. Utah State Land Board–Discusses the operation and applicability of the Takings Clause, including “damaging” as a taking under the Utah Constitution.

Conatser v. Johnson–Public’s right to utilize the waters of the state, including touching stream beds.

Cornish Town v. Koller–Jury may determine amount of compensation.

Dairy Products Services, Inc. v. Wellsville–City authority to regulate and abate nuisances through licensing.

Davis County v. Clearfield City–Denial of conditional use permit must be based on concrete, factual evidence.

Davis County v. Zions First National Bank–Value enhancement due to project not included in fair market value; comparable sales must be of similar properties; requirements for eminent domain complaint.

Diamond B-Y Ranches v. Tooele County–Discusses what constitutes a taking.

Dolan v. Tigard–Establishes “rough proportionality” test for exactions.

Farmers New World Life Insurance Co. v. Bountiful City–Recovery for permanent damaging of property for a public use.

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles–Compensation required even if taking is only “temporary.”

Fox v. Park City–Appellate review of land use decisions, what makes a decision arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.

Gillmor v. Summit County–Appeal of land use decision may include any challenge to the decision or the law’s validity.

Hamblin v. Clearfield City–Takings claim may arise from storm water entering property from a public storm drain system.

Harmon City v. Draper City–Distinction between legislative and administrative functions.

Hatch v. Boulder Town–Authority to enact zoning ordinances.

Hawai’i Housing Authority v. Midkiff–“Public Welfare” is a broad concept, and eminent domain may be used as long as the objective is to promote the public welfare.

Hogs R Us v. Town of Fairfield–Road maintenance decisions are within sole discretion of town.

Home Builders Ass’n v. American Fork–Validity of impact fees.

Home Builders Association v. City of North Logan–Impact fees must not require newly-developed properties to bear more than an equitable share of capital costs for facilities.

Kelo v. City of New London–What constitutes a “public use” under the Takings Clause

Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. Debenedictis -The entire range of property rights available to the owner is critical to a takings analysis.

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist.–Exaction analysis applies whenever government imposes conditions on approval of a land use application.

Krejci v. Saratoga Springs–Zoning ordinances may be subject to initiatives and referenda.

LC Canyon Partners LLC v. Salt Lake County–What constitutes a “protectable property interest.”

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.–What is a regulatory taking, and what happens when a “taking” is impermissible.

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.–Any physical occupation of property is a taking.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council–Taking occurs when regulation destroys all property value.

Marion Energy v. KFJ Ranch Partnership–Ambiguity in eminent domain statute construed in favor of property owner.

Morrison v. Horne–Mistaken characterization does not establish zoning estoppel

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission–There must be an essential link between an exaction and a legitimate government interest.

Olsen v. Park City–Appeal time begins to run when final act to make ordinance effective is performed.

Pacific West Communities, Inc. v. Grantsville City–Issues and evidence not presented in administrative hearings will not be considered by a court.

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island–Ripeness considerations in regulatory takings.

Patterson v. American Fork–Administrative remedies must be exhausted before a land use decision may be challenged in court.

Pen & Ink, LLC v. Alpine City–Review of land use decisions by district and appellate courts.

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City–When a regulation constitutes a taking of private property.

Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon–If regulation of property goes too far, it will be considered a taking.

Petersen c. Riverton City–Discussion of appeals and right to file lawsuit to pursue claims arising from a land use decision.

Price Development Co. v. Orem City–Redevelopment agencies must follow substantive and procedural rules when exercising eminent domain.

Provo City v. Ivie–Cities may only exercise authority granted to them by the Legislature.

Q-2, LLC v. Hughes–Title to property disputed passes when all elements of Boundary by Acquiescence are met, even if a court has not yet ruled on the dispute.

Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores, Inc. v. Salt Lake City–Temporary interference with property not a taking or damaging.

Salt Lake City Mission v. Salt Lake City–Administrative remedies must be exhausted before a land use decision may be challenged in court.

Salt Lake County v. Granite Board of Education — School districts may be charged impact fees.

Salt Lake County v. Kartchner–Estoppel, waiver, or laches generally not available as a defense, except in exceptional circumstances.

Sanguinetti v. United States–Damaging property as a taking under the Federal Constitution.

Save Our Canyons v. Board of Adjustment of Salt Lake County–Discusses criteria for variances.

Scherbel v. Salt Lake City–No vested rights if an application does not conform to the zoning ordinance.

Schroeder Investments, LC v. UDOT–Discusses the “more necessary public use” rule pertaining to eminent domain.

Selman v. Box Elder County–Discusses Authority of Ombudsman Office to mediate takings disputes.

Smith Investment Co. v. Sandy City–Validity of zoning ordinances.

Stucker v. Summit County–Mere ownership or purchase of land does not constitute a substantial change in position sufficient enough to invoke zoning estoppel.

Three D Corp. v. Salt Lake City–Loss of reasonable access from a public street may constitute a property taking.

Tooele Associates v. Tooele City–Validity of inspection fees.

Tooele County v. Ferrebee –No additional compensation if property taken is within “the scope of the project.”

Town of Alta v. Ben Hame–Mistakenly-issued approvals do not bind a local zoning authority.

UDOT v. Admiral Beverage–Discusses some of the factors in determining Just Compensation.

UDOT v. FPA West Point, LLC–Each property interest is to be valued separately and individually.

UDOT v. Harvey Real Estate–Right of access from public street, compensation for loss of access.

Uintah Mountain RTC, LLC v. Duchesne County–Decision to grant or deny a conditional use application must be based upon substantial evidence; consent of neighbors may not be a requirement for a conditional use permit.

Utah County v. Baxter–Zoning estoppel only available in extraordinary circumstances.

Utah County v. Ivie–Obtaining an order of immediate occupancy.

Utah County v. Young–Zoning estoppel only available in extraordinary circumstances.

Vial v. Provo City–Rebutting a presumption of abandonment of a nonconforming use.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty–Land uses may be regulated to promote public welfare.

Wadsworth v. West Jordan City–Denial of conditional use permit may not be based solely on adverse public comments, but must be based on substantial evidence.

Wasatch County v. Okleberry–When continuous public use causes dedication of private land for a public road.

Wells v. Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment–All variance criteria must be met.

Western Land Equities v. City of Logan–Establishes Utah’s Vested Rights Rule.

Wintergreen Group, LLC v. UDOT–Ripeness and right to pursue claims for compensation.

Xanthos v. Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment–Zoning authorities given wide latitude of discretion.  Equitable defenses for zoning ordinance only available in exceptional circumstances.

Yee v. City of Escondido–Right to rent property may not be conditioned on forfeiture of right to compensation for mandated physical occupation of the property.