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.

Part of the analysis for a taking requires courts to determine whether the degree of the exactions demanded by the city's permit conditions bears the required relationship to the projected impact of petitioner's proposed development. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 127 (1978) (' '[A] use restriction may constitute a 'taking' if not reasonably necessary to the effectuation of a substantial government purpose' '). 

In some States, very generalized statements as to the necessary connection between the required dedication and the proposed development seem to suffice. See, e. g., Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone County, 144 Mont. 25, 394 P. 2d 182 (1964); Jenad, Inc. v. Scarsdale, 18 N. Y. 2d 78, 218 N. E. 2d 673 (1966). This standard was deemed too lax to adequately protect a petitioner's right to just compensation if her property is taken for a public purpose. See Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374 (1994). Other state courts require a very exacting correspondence, described as the 'specifi[c] and uniquely attributable' test. The Supreme Court of Illinois first developed this test in Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank v. Mount Prospect, 22 ...

Register or login to access full content