Abstract
I. Introduction
II. The Supreme Court's Opinions on Extortionate Exactions ... A. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission ... B. Dolan v. City of Tigard
III. In Defense of the Restated Nollan Theory ... A. Land-Use Restrictions Are Uncompensated Takings or Deny Substantive Due Process If They Do Not Substantially Advance Legitimate State Interests … B. Substantive Due Process or Takings ... 1. Takings ... 2. Substantive Due Process
IV. The Consequences of the Theory ... A. The Exacted Interest Need Not Be a Taking ... B. Cash Fees Must Be Proportional and Related ... C. The Government Cannot Constitutionally Reverse the Exaction Process ... D. Requiring an "Individualized Determination" Makes Sense
V. Conclusion
Recommended Citation
Alan Romero,
Two Constitutional Theories for Invalidating Extortionate Exactions,
78 Neb. L. Rev.
(1999)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol78/iss2/4