In CASE 18.2 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 the Nollan and Dolan 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; Nollan and Dolan; unconstitutional taking
C) reversed; Kelo; nonconforming use
D) affirmed; Nollan and Dolan; unconstitutional taking

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The case Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District involved the plaintiff's land-use permit proposal, in which the state of Florida imposed excessive conditions that amounted to an unconstitutional taking of Koontz's land. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court's decision, based on the principles established in the Nollan and Dolan cases, which require a nexus between any conditions imposed on a land-use permit and the impact of the proposed development. Therefore, the correct choice is B.