Last week marked the close of a major legal dispute under Maine law regarding the applicability of retroactive laws to development projects already under construction. The issue in the case was one of fundamental fairness:...more
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s (“the Court”) ruling in NECEC Transmission LLC et al v. Bureau of Parks and Lands et al, 2022 ME 48 (August 30, 2022), that New England Clean Energy Connect (“NECEC”) holds constitutionally...more
Maine's Supreme Judicial Court has held that a 2021 referendum that may have killed the New England Clean Energy Connect project may also have violated the project's "vested rights" in violation of the Maine Constitution....more
Below are summaries of the key California and Ninth Circuit land use and development cases decided in 2020. Each case name is linked to our more extensive discussion of the case on the Land Use & Development Law Report. 1....more
On November 24, 2020, the California Supreme Court denied two requests for depublication of the First Appellate District’s decision Marin Assn. of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2016) 2...more
Most developers are familiar with the notion that under California’s Subdivision Map Act, the vesting tentative map statutes provide a way of fixing a developer’s rights. Put simply, obtaining a vesting tentative map allows...more
Modifications Are Permissible Under the California Rule - In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court held that changes made to the County Employees’ Retirement Law, known as CERL, by pension reform measures...more
When a tract of land is governed by both a vesting tentative map and a subsequent development agreement and the terms of the two documents conflict, the development agreement controls. North Murrieta Community v. City of...more
The Third Appellate District held that the State Water Resources Control Board has the authority to issue temporary emergency regulations and curtailment orders which establish minimum flow requirements, regulate unreasonable...more
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, issued a published decision (North Murrieta Community, LLC v. City of Murrieta, Case No. E072663) on June 8, 2020, that addressed how inconsistencies can arise...more
The protection from ordinance changes, commonly known as “vested rights,” conferred by the grant of a final subdivision or site plan approval is one of the most important legal tenets of New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law...more
This week the General Assembly of North Carolina provided some relief to developers with active development approvals. Pursuant to Senate Bill 704, signed into law on May 4, 2020 (the "Act"), the expiration of those...more
While all of us are still firmly entrenched within the early stages of the global response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, I’m already thinking about “what’s next”. The land use world must roll on, after all, but it must do...more
Even as they make their investment, private equity investors are focused on their exit. A standard feature of an exit strategy is the set of drag-along rights embedded in a stockholder or similar agreement executed among...more
Today, we take a look at the land use case Jubilee Carolina, LLC v. Town of Carolina Beach, decided October 15, 2019. In April 2017, the Town approved a site plan and conditional use permit that provided interconnectivity...more
On October 9, 2019, as part of an 18-bill housing package, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 330, also known as the "Housing Crisis Act of 2019." SB 330 addresses the statewide housing crisis by restricting local rules that...more
Addressing the issue of trademark ownership under since-terminated development and commercialization agreements, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part, finding that under a...more
The California Supreme Court recently issued its decision in the Cal Fire Local 2881 v. CalPERS case – the first of six so-called “California Rule” (“Vested Pension Rights”) cases pending before the Court. The California...more
As expected, the California Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s holding in Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System et al., concluding that the plaintiffs did not have a vested right to...more
In a much awaited announcement, on November 8, 2018, the California Supreme Court scheduled oral argument in CalFire Local 2881, et al. v. CalPERS, et al., which is the first of the five pending vested rights cases that are...more
It’s a big litigation year for California pensions. The California Supreme Court ruled last month that San Diego’s landmark pension cutback legislation, Proposition B, was illegally placed on the 2012 ballot because city...more
California’s cities are in crisis mode. With pension costs outpacing revenue growth and severely underfunded retirement systems (the California Public Employee Retirement System is only 68 percent funded), local...more
The evolution of vested rights jurisprudence in California is far from over, with the Second District Court of Appeal (“DCA”) stepping into the fray with its June 19, 2018 decision, Hipsher v. Los Angeles County Employees...more
School impact fees for an apartment complex must be calculated based on the square footage of both the individual units and other space within the interior of the buildings, such as hallways and elevator shafts. 1901 First...more
In the latest twist in California’s pending vested rights litigation, parties on all sides of Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. et al v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Assn., et al. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 61...more