My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 10/24/05 WS
>
Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:14:46 PM
Creation date
10/21/2005 9:25:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
10/24/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
261
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />West Reporter Image (PDf) 44f U.~. ~::>::>, "IUU ;:'.l..'[. "':::-1,;)0,00 L.t:u.,u IUO, 1"+ t:.t'\v 1000, IU <br />Envtl. L. Rep. 20,361 <br /> <br />Briefs and Other Related Documents <br /> <br />Supreme Court of the United States <br />Donald W. AGINS et ux., Appellants, <br />v. <br />CITY OF TIBURON. <br />No. 79-602. <br />Argued April 15, 1980. <br />Decided June 10, 1980. <br /> <br />Landowners filed complaint against city seeking damages for inverse condemnation and <br />declaration that zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional. The Superior Court, Marin <br />County, California, sustained demurrer, and the Supreme Court of California affirmed, 24 <br />Cal.3d 266, 157 Cal.Rptr. 372, 598 P.2d 25, and landowners appealed. The Supreme Court, <br />Mr. Justice Powell, held that: (1) city's open-space land zoning ordinances, which restricted <br />previously purchased five-acre tract of land to single-family residences and open-space use, <br />did not take the property without just compensation, where the zoning permitted construction of <br />one to five residences on the land, advanced legitimate governmental goals, would benefit the <br />landowners as well as the public by assuring careful and orderly development, and neither <br />prevented the best use of the land nor extinguished a fundamental attribute of ownership, and <br />(2) municipality's good-faith planning activities, which did not result in successful prosecution <br />of an eminent domain claim, did not so burden landowners' enjoyment of their property as to <br />constitute a taking. <br />Affirmed. <br /> <br />West Headnotes <br /> <br />[1] KeyCite Notes <br /> <br />148 Eminent Domain <br />148111 Proceedings to Take Property and Assess Compensation <br />148k166 k. Nature and Form of Proceeding. Most Cited Cases <br /> <br />"Eminent domain" refers to legal proceeding in which a government asserts its authority to <br />condemn property.- <br /> <br />9/26/2005 <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />scUz- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.