Artificial Intelligence in Construction Contracts – Evaluating the Risks and Benefits
Webinar ¦ Benefits of Using AI in Construction
Residential Contractor Boot Camp
Key Lease Work Letter Issues When the Tenant Is Doing the Work
DE Under 3: FAR Council Issued Final Rule Requiring Unionized Workforces on Large Federal Construction Projects
Podcast: Owner’s Outlook: Managing Risks in an Ever-Changing Construction Environment - Diagnosing Health Care
Moving the Ball for Metro Atlanta Mobility: Atlanta Regional Commission - TAG Infrastructure Talks Podcast
Data, Architectural Engineering, and Designing a Better Future
4 Key Takeaways | The Future of Construction, Infrastructure and Energy Disputes in the Endemic Age
Podcast: Owner's Outlook: HCA's Clint Russell on Health Care Construction Pricing and Innovation - Diagnosing Health Care
8 Key Takeaways | Hot Topics in Construction Contracting
Podcast: Owner's Outlook: Maximize and Safeguard Reimbursement Through Design - Diagnosing Health Care
Podcast: Owner's Outlook: Renovating and Expanding Critical Access Hospitals in a Volatile Market - Diagnosing Health Care
Podcast: Owner's Outlook: Health Care Construction in a Period of Labor Shortages / Cost Inflation - Diagnosing Health Care
The Labor Law Insider: Project Labor Agreements, Part I
DE Under 3: OFCCP AAP Verification Portal 'Rules of Behavior', Vaccination Injunction Updates, & Recent Job Scam Alerts
Construction Webinar Series: The Infrastructure Bill’s Impact on DOT’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program
Construction Webinar Series: Preparing for and Managing Claims in the COVID-19 Project Environment
Into the Future: Modern Partnerships in Health Care Construction Delivery
Law Brief®: David Pfeffer and Richard Schoenstein Discuss the Legal Implications of Infrastructure Collapses
The United States Supreme Court’s most recent Takings case, Sheetz v. El Dorado County, California enunciated a seemingly simple holding, that legislatively-imposed development fees are not, as such, exempt from analysis...more
Investors and developers scour the Southern California real estate market searching for opportunities to buy dated houses that they can demolish and replace with large, modern homes to sell for much more. A few individuals...more
Osceola County, City of St. Cloud, and City of Mt. Dora are all set to vote on proposed increases to impact fees that, if approved, will substantially increase the cost of development in these jurisdictions. Below is...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that may significantly affect how development impact fees are assessed in California. In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the Court unanimously held that...more
In a typical permitting process, the local government may place certain conditions on issuing a building permit to further a legitimate public purpose. While the local government has “substantial authority to regulate land...more
In a highly-anticipated case revolving around development impact fees, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 144 S.Ct. 893 (2024) that legislatively-imposed conditions on building permits...more
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has again rejected a state's narrow interpretation of the constitutional limits on government's ability to impose development conditions. A unanimous SCOTUS ruled on April 12 in favor of the...more
The US Supreme Court’s decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado earlier this month will affect how local governments impose impact fees in the future and who pays certain development costs....more
Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs) can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes...more
When the government wants to take private property for a public project, it must compensate the owner at fair market value. The just compensation concept comes from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which provides: “nor...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, in which the Court held that for the purpose of a takings claim there is no distinction in whether permit conditions...more
The Sheetz v. County of El Dorado decision will create uncertainty in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and many other states as cities, counties, developers and property owners reexamine whether existing impact fee...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land‑use permit conditions. Building permit...more
On April 12, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. Cnty. Of El Dorado, California, 22-1074 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024) and unanimously held that legislative actions can still be unconstitutional exactions...more
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, U.S. No. 22-1074 (petition for certiorari granted 9/29/23) (Sheetz). The case concerned the...more
Some commentators claim there are bitter divisions among the Justices, roiling the Court and its processes. Many of the same commentators were critical of the Court’s decision holding that former President Trump was not...more
Today, April 12, 2024, in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overruled more than two decades of California precedent, holding that legislatively established development impact fee programs must...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, a case that concerns whether land use permit conditions in the form of monetary exactions created by legislation are...more
Last month, in Cuffaro v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Bellport (Index # 620453/2021), the Suffolk Supreme Court reinforced the existing and binding case law that a municipality’s issuance of a building permit to...more
A new law took effect in the city of Los Angeles on June 8 that prohibits developers, property owners, and their respective principals from making local political contributions while certain planning applications are pending...more
Trending Now: Massachusetts SJC Ruling: Good News for Owners and Developers - The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued a written decision in Murchison v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Sherborn, et al. (SJC-12867) on...more
When imposing a school impact fee on residential development, a district need not separately analyze particular subtypes of projects; the authorizing statutes simply require a reasonable relationship between the need for the...more
In a recent published decision, the California Court of Appeal had the opportunity to address this issue when the property owners of a beachside residence in the City of Los Angeles challenged a setback condition that the...more
In Lynch v. California Coastal Comm'n, __ Cal.5th __, No. S221980, 2017 WL 2871762, 2017 Cal. LEXIS 5054 (Cal. July 6, 2017), the Supreme Court of California held that the owners of bluff-top residences along the California...more
On May 27, 2016, in Town of Lakewood Village v. Bizios, the Texas Supreme Court held that general law municipalities do not have the authority to enforce building codes within their extraterritorial jurisdictions (ETJs). This...more