We've delved into the background of the Koontz litigation here in past posts; suffice to say that it's a legal controversy between landowner Coy Koontz and his local water management district that has gone on for years (18 years so far), in cases that have come to be known as Koontz I, Koontz II, ... Koontz IV.
Last June, we noted that Koontz was taking the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Koontz v. St. John Water Management District to the United States Supreme Court for its review of his claims that constitutional rights had been violated.
It was then up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether or not they would accept his invitation to review the matter. They have. On October 5, 2012, Coy Koontz's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was granted.
You can follow the case online via its online docket at the United States Supreme Court's web site.
Koontz brings before the High Court two questions in this inverse condemnation case:
(1) whether the government can be held liable for a taking when it refuses to issue a land-use permit on the sole basis that the permit applicant did not accede to a permit condition that, if applied, would violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests set out in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994); and
(2) whether the nexus and proportionality tests set out in Nollan and Dolan apply to a land-use exaction that takes the form of a government demand that a permit applicant dedicate money, services, labor, or any other type of personal property to a public use.