But it was less clear how the justices would instruct local governments about how to apply narrower exaction rules to General Plans.

In a case from San Francisco, high court punches another hole in the Williamson County doctrine.

Flat denial of blufftop house meant the "futility exception" was in play. Cost to the city: $3.4 million and counting.

Based on the new judges' dissent, an important San Francisco property "takings" case may be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Also: Statute of limitations on the Mitigation Fee Act, a request to depublish the Millenium Hollywood case, and the U.S. Supreme decline to hear a takings case from Massachusetts involving a local wetlands ordinance.

With 4-4 ties looming, court will have to decide whether to rehear cases. >>read more

In a blow to the Pacific Legal Foundation, the California Supreme Court rules that Encinitas landowners can't simultaneously sue and build. >>read more

Case from Wisconsin is based on quirky facts -- just like practically every takings case the Supreme Court deals with. >>read more

The U.S. Supreme Court decided on Monday not take the appeal in California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, the case in which the California Supreme Court upheld San Jose's inclusionary housing requirement. But the court was not completely silent. 

In concurring with the decision to pass on the case - a decision that not accompanied by a written opinion by the court -- Justice Clarence Thomas said he believes that the question of whether disproportionate exactions can be imposed on developers in legislative actions - as opposed to quasi-judicial action - is not settled. >>read more

Thirty years ago, in his first big majority opinion -- a land-use case from the California coast -- Antonin Scalia found the colorful and irreverent style that came to distinguish his career on the Supreme Court. And with one clean swipe, he knocked William Brennan out of the box and became the intellectual leader of the court. >>read more