This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

U.S. Supreme Court

Jan. 10, 2024

US Supreme Court seems to prepared to return major takings case to state court

George Sheetz sued El Dorado County in 2016 after the county demanded the $23,000 fee, which is intended to pay for road and highway improvements and he paid under protest. He lost in superior court and at the 3rd District Court of Appeal before appealing to the Supreme Court.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said at oral arguments Tuesday that many issues raised by the parties were not before the Supreme Court at the moment. (The New York Times)

In a major property rights case, U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared to agree Tuesday that a $23,000 traffic mitigation fee is not protected just because it was adopted by El Dorado County supervisors.

But that may not resolve the lawsuit by Placerville homeowner George Sheetz, as the court appeared inclined to send the case back to the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento to decide whether the fee violates the U.S. Constitution’s ta...

To continue reading, please subscribe.

Already a subscriber?

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)