Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (601 U.S. 267)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 12, 2024 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 601 U.S. 267 · 144 S. Ct. 893
- Decided
- April 12, 2024
- Term
- October Term 2023
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Barrett
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 , 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT No. 22–1074. Argued January 9, 2024—Decided April 12, 2024 As a condition of receiving a residential building permit, petitioner George Sheetz was required by the County of El Dorado to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee. The fee was part of a “General Plan” en- acted by the County’s Board of Supervisors to address increasing de- mand for public services spurred by new development. The fee amount was not based on the costs of traffic impacts specifically attributable to Sheetz’s particular project, but rather was assessed according to a rate schedule that took into account the type of development and its location within the County. Sheetz paid the fee under protest and ob- tained the permit. He later sought relief in state court, claiming that conditioning the building permit on the payment of a traffic impact fee…
Excerpt of a 36,565-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.