Kelo v. City of New London

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court's 2004–2005 term added some excitement to the lives of land use attorneys and planners. In addition to jettisoning the “substantially advances” test from takings jurisprudence (see Dwight Merriam's commentary discussing Lingle v. Chevron No. 04–163), the Justices clarified that a property owner doesn't get two bites of the apple—in both state and federal courts—when bringing his takings claim (San Remo Hotel v. City of San Francisco No. 04–340); and Section 1983 damages and attorneys fees are not available to someone challenging a zoning decision pursuant to the Telecommunications Act (City of Rancho Palos Verdes No. 03–1601). Each was a 9-0 decision.