In CASE 18.3 Koontz v.St.Johns River Water Management District (2013),plaintiff Koontz purchased 14.9 acres of undeveloped land classified as "wetlands." The State of Florida found Koontz's land-use permit proposal (which included land and cash)to develop the land inadequate and imposed more "conditions" to the permit.Koontz found these conditions were excessive under theNolan and Dollan cases,and filed suit.The U.S.Supreme Court __________ the Florida Supreme Court,holding that the government's demand for property (and cash)for land under the __________ requirements amounted to a(n)__________ of Koontz's land.
A) affirmed, Kelo, unconstitutional taking
B) reversed, Nolan and Dollan, unconstitutional taking
C) reversed, Kelo, nonconforming use
D) affirmed, Nolan and Dollan, unconstitutional taking

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The U.S.Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court and held that the government's demand for property (and cash) for land under the Nolan and Dollan requirements amounted to an unconstitutional taking of Koontz's land. Therefore, option B is the correct answer as it includes the correct case laws and the outcome of the case.