Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

There can be no dispute that the police power of the States encompasses the authority to impose conditions on private development. See, e.g., Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255 (1980); Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978); Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U. S. 603 (1927).


Under the well-settled doctrine of 'unconstitutional conditions,' the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the property sought has little or no relationship to the benefit. In evaluating any claims under the doctrine, it must be determined whether an 'essential nexus' exists between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U. S. 825, 837. If one does, then it must be decided whether the degree of the exactions demanded by the permit conditions bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development. 


'The right to exclude [others is] one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.'' Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, ...

Register or login to access full content



Professors
Professionals
Students