Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Petitioner's Reply Brief, Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management Dist., No. 11-1447 (Dec. 8, 2013)

Petitioner's Reply Brief, Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management Dist., No. 11-1447 (Dec. 8, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,635|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5

More info:

Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Jan 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

 
No. 11-1447
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
 
Ë
 COY A. KOONTZ, JR.,
 Petitioner,
v.ST. JOHNS RIVER WATERMANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
Respondent.
 
Ë
 
On Writ of Certiorarito the Supreme Court of the State of Florida
 
Ë
 
PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF
 
Ë
 
B
RIAN
T.
 
H
ODGES
Pacific Legal Foundation10940 NE 33rd Place,Suite 210Bellevue, WA 98004Telephone: (425) 576-0484Facsimile: (425) 576-9565E-mail: bth@pacificlegal.orgM
ICHAEL
D.
 
J
ONES
Michael D. Jones and Associates, P.A.30 Windsormere WaySuite 200Oviedo, FL 32765Telephone: (407) 359-9914P
 AUL
J.
 
B
EARD
II
Counsel of Record
Pacific Legal Foundation930 G StreetSacramento, CA 95814Telephone: (916) 419-7111Facsimile: (916) 419-7747E-mail: pjb@pacificlegal.orgC
HRISTOPHER
 V.
 
C
 ARLYLE
The Carlyle AppellateLaw Firm1950 Laurel Manor Drive,Suite 130The Villages, FL 32162Telephone: (352) 259-8852
Counsel for Petitioner
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................iiINTRODUCTION............................1SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENTOF FACTS..............................2 A.This Matter Comes to the Court As a Permit Exaction Challenge.........2B.The District ImposedSpecific Exactions.....................7 ARGUMENT................................9I.
NOLLAN 
 AND
 DOLAN 
SHOULD APPLY WHERE AN APPLICANT’SREFUSAL TO ACCEDE TO ANUNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONRESULTS IN PERMIT DENIAL............9II.
NOLLAN 
 AND
 DOLAN 
SHOULD APPLY TO PERMIT EXACTIONSREGARDLESS OF THE FORM OFTHE PROPERTY EXACTED..............14 A.The District’s Proposed RuleTo Exempt Money Confiscationsfrom the Takings Clause ShouldBe Rejected.........................16B.The Sky Will Not Fall If GovernmentMust Show That Monetary ExactionsSatisfy
Nollan
and
 Dolan
..............21CONCLUSION.............................24
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPageCases
 Arkansas Game & FishComm’n v. United States
,133 S. Ct. 511 (Dec. 4, 2012).............15, 20
 Armstrong v. United States
,364 U.S. 40 (1960) ........................14
 Association of BituminousContractors, Inc. v. Apfel
,156 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 1998)...............18
 Brown v. Legal Foundationof Washington
, 538 U.S. 216 (2003)........14-17
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States
,271 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001)...............20
County of Mobile v. Kimball
,102 U.S. 691 (1880)........................15
 Dolan v. City of Tigard
,512 U.S. 374 (1994)....................passim
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel
,524 U.S. 498 (1998)...................1, 18-20
Graham v. Estuary Props., Inc.
,399 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1981).................12
 Koontz v. St. Johns RiverWater Management Dist.
,720 So. 2d 560 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998)
rev. denied
729 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1999).........11
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
,544 U.S. 528 (2005)........................23

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->