29:
315:, near the shore of Lake Tahoe. When she purchased the property in 1972, it was zoned for residential development. In 1980, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), which regulates development in the Lake Tahoe Basin, adopted a plan prohibiting any development that exceeded "environmental threshold carrying capacity". In 1987, the Agency adopted an Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES) “to rate the suitability of vacant residential parcels for building and other modification."
319:
Stream
Environment Zones (SEZs) normatively received an IPES score of zero and was therefore deemed unsuitable for construction. Therefore, as a form of recompense for the infringement of the developmental rights of property owners, TRPA provides property owners with Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). These TDRs, with the agency's approval, enable property owners to sell their development rights to owners of other parcels.
294:, which she intended to develop. However, TRPA imposed stringent regulations to protect the environment of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Under these regulations, Suitum was denied the permit to develop her property because it was classified as unsuitable for development based on the environmental criteria. The United States Supreme Court granted
400:
In conclusion, he contended that one could easily resolve whether or not there was a “final decision” in the case solely by looking to the “fixing of rights to use and develop her land." TRPA denied Suitum permission to construct a house on her property because the lot was located within a SEZ. Once
318:
The IPES also established "Stream
Environment Zones (SEZs), which generally collect surface water from upland areas and direct it into Lake Tahoe and its tributaries." To be eligible for construction, a property must achieve a minimum score in the IPES system. However, undeveloped land located in the
327:
impeded Suitum's reasonable expectations. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals supported this rationale and upheld the decision, asserting that the agency's action on a TDR transfer application would constitute the necessary "final decision" regarding the regulation's application to Suitum's property.
322:
When Suitum applied to the agency for permission to construct a house on her lot, the agency determined that her property was located within a SEZ, assigned it an IPES score of zero, and denied permission to build. Suitum appealed the denial to the agency's governing board, which also denied relief.
151:
2. Must a property owner sell transferable development rights (TDRs) and apply for agency approval of the sale in order to ripen a takings claim under the
Williamson County final decision requirement: a) when the regulatory agency has already conclusively determined that no viable use of her parcel
326:
The
District Court determined that Suitum's claim was not ripe for adjudication due to her failure to attempt to sell her TDRs, which made it impossible to determine their specific values. As a result, the court concluded that it could not realistically assess whether the agency's regulations had
377:'s affirmation of the District Court of Nevada's ruling against Suitum. The Court dismissed the lower court's assertion that a final decision on Suitum's land was pending due to her failure to acquire or transfer her Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). Furthermore, the Court ruled that the
302:
was ripe for adjudication, emphasizing that Suitum was not required to attempt to sell her TDRs before her claim could be considered ripe. The Court based its reasoning on the immediate and direct impact of the regulatory action on her property rights, deeming further administrative actions
323:
Suitum, however, did not seek to exercise the rights of the transferable development rights (TDRs) provided to her by the Agency, but filed a complaint for just compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that TRPA's decision constituted a "taking" of her property.
162:
The United States
Supreme Court's decision regarding the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's determination on Suitum's property development eligibility established it as a “final agency decision”. This ruling resulted in Suitum's claim being considered ripe for
152:
of land will be permitted; b) when a TDR transfer will not allow her to make any use of her parcel of land; and c) when the maximum extent of TDRs available for transfer are already definite and certain, and can be valued by normal appraisal methods?
381:
case was not applicable and differentiated it from the Suitum case. Additionally, the Court rejected TRPA's assertion that Suitum's claim was premature based on the "fitness for review" standard established in the Abbott
Laboratories case.
372:
The United States
Supreme Court ruled that TRPA's determination regarding Suitum's property development eligibility constituted a final agency decision, thus rendering her claim ripe for adjudication. The Court's decision reversed the
780:
396:...The focus of the “final decision” inquiry is on ascertaining the extent of the governmental restriction on land use, not what the government has given the landowner in exchange for that restriction...
385:
The majority underscored the mutual agreement between both parties regarding the TDRs rightfully belonging to Suitum, asserting that no agency decision was required for her to obtain or sell them.
364:
TRPA maintained that Suitum had not pursued the available mechanisms to obtain or transfer her TDRs, concluding that she had not exhausted all administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit.
401:
TRPA conceded that it "...knew the full extent of the regulation’s impact in restricting development of her own land", Scalia believed that the final decision requirement had been satisfied.
335:
Suitum argued that the Agency's restrictions deprived her of “all reasonable and economically viable use” of her property, constituting a taking without just compensation in violation of the
361:. The argument maintained that Suitum's takings claim was unfit for adjudication due to the absence of a final agency decision regarding the permissible extent of development on her land.
340:
701:
80:
374:
336:
265:
765:
622:"Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: Unlawful Taking Action Ripe for Adjudication Despite Failure to Attempt to Sell Transferable Property Rights"
770:
785:
299:
247:
Souter, joined by
Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, however, O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, joined except as to Parts II-B and II-C
557:"Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: Applying the Takings Ripeness Rule to Land Use Regulations and Transferable Development Rights"
147:
1. Whether providing TDRs as compensation for regulatory taking constitute a "final agency decision" by TRPA, thus enabling adjudication?
283:
33:
455:
556:
621:
775:
344:
739:
357:
287:
355:
TRPA argued that Suitum's claim was not suitable for adjudication under the "fitness for review" standard established in
456:"Just a Little Longer Mrs. Suitum, Your Case Is Just about Ripe for Review: Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency"
531:
410:
312:
268:
194:
61:
705:
72:
506:
721:
134:
222:
118:
602:
290:(TRPA) and its impact on private property rights. Bernadine Suitum owned a parcel of land near
594:
186:
178:
583:"Litigating "Suitum V. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency" in the United States Supreme Court"
218:
206:
712:
673:
392:, joined by O'Connor and Thomas, stated in their concurrence—in part and judgement—that:
730:
648:
389:
230:
198:
759:
430:
507:"Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 80 F.3d 359 | Casetext Search + Citator"
210:
75:
347:(TDRs) would be an “idle and futile act” because the TDR program was a "sham."
298:
to determine the ripeness of Suitum's claim. The Court concluded that Suitum's
295:
291:
598:
483:"U.S. Reports: Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997)"
748:
122:
102:
92:
606:
582:
482:
649:"Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997)"
343:. Additionally, Suitum argued that any attempt to transfer her
311:
Bernadine Suitum owned an 18,300-square-foot parcel of land in
28:
675:
Bernadine Suitum, Petitioner v. Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency
781:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
626:
University of Baltimore Journal of Environmental Law
286:case pertaining to the regulatory authority of the
259:
251:
243:
238:
167:
156:
141:
129:
113:
108:
98:
88:
67:
57:
47:
40:
21:
487:Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA
8:
587:Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law
431:"Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency"
18:
532:"A lot is at stake in Supreme Court case"
698:Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
279:Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
271:- Civil action for deprivation of rights
52:Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
22:Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
422:
16:1997 United States Supreme Court case
7:
643:
641:
639:
576:
574:
477:
475:
473:
460:Villanova Environmental Law Journal
34:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
766:United States Supreme Court cases
708:725 (1997) is available from:
561:Golden Gate University Law Review
27:
771:United States land use case law
620:Heise, James Todd (1997–1998).
530:Christensen, Jon (1997-07-07).
786:1997 in United States case law
555:Hitchcock, Michael B. (1998).
379:Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
358:Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
345:Transfer of Development Rights
288:Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
1:
375:Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
581:Lazarus, Richard J. (1997).
282:, 520 U.S. 725 (1997), is a
351:Arguments of the respondent
331:Arguments of the petitioner
284:United States Supreme Court
802:
749:Oyez (oral argument audio)
264:
172:
161:
146:
26:
454:Cross, Kevin J. (1998).
435:Pacific Legal Foundation
411:Pacific Legal Foundation
255:Scalia, O’Connor, Thomas
41:Argued February 26, 1997
776:Takings Clause case law
313:Incline Village, Nevada
672:Scalia (27 May 1997),
398:
394:
341:Fourteenth Amendments
266:U.S. Const. amend. V
103:Opinion announcement
99:Opinion announcement
43:Decided May 27, 1997
740:Library of Congress
269:42 U.S. Code § 1983
223:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
195:Sandra Day O'Connor
142:Questions presented
183:Associate Justices
536:High Country News
275:
274:
179:William Rehnquist
793:
753:
747:
744:
738:
735:
729:
726:
720:
717:
711:
685:
684:
683:
682:
669:
663:
662:
660:
659:
645:
634:
633:
617:
611:
610:
578:
569:
568:
552:
546:
545:
543:
542:
527:
521:
520:
518:
517:
503:
497:
496:
494:
493:
479:
468:
467:
451:
445:
444:
442:
441:
427:
168:Court membership
31:
30:
19:
801:
800:
796:
795:
794:
792:
791:
790:
756:
755:
751:
745:
742:
736:
733:
727:
724:
718:
715:
709:
694:
689:
688:
680:
678:
671:
670:
666:
657:
655:
647:
646:
637:
619:
618:
614:
580:
579:
572:
554:
553:
549:
540:
538:
529:
528:
524:
515:
513:
505:
504:
500:
491:
489:
481:
480:
471:
453:
452:
448:
439:
437:
429:
428:
424:
419:
407:
370:
353:
333:
309:
221:
219:Clarence Thomas
209:
207:Anthony Kennedy
197:
187:John P. Stevens
149:
137:(9th Cir. 1997)
42:
36:
17:
12:
11:
5:
799:
797:
789:
788:
783:
778:
773:
768:
758:
757:
722:Google Scholar
693:
692:External links
690:
687:
686:
664:
635:
612:
593:(2): 179–213.
570:
547:
522:
498:
469:
446:
421:
420:
418:
415:
414:
413:
406:
403:
369:
366:
352:
349:
332:
329:
308:
305:
273:
272:
262:
261:
257:
256:
253:
249:
248:
245:
241:
240:
236:
235:
234:
233:
231:Stephen Breyer
199:Antonin Scalia
184:
181:
176:
170:
169:
165:
164:
159:
158:
154:
153:
144:
143:
139:
138:
131:
127:
126:
115:
111:
110:
106:
105:
100:
96:
95:
90:
86:
85:
69:
65:
64:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
38:
37:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
798:
787:
784:
782:
779:
777:
774:
772:
769:
767:
764:
763:
761:
754:
750:
741:
732:
723:
714:
707:
703:
699:
691:
677:
676:
668:
665:
654:
650:
644:
642:
640:
636:
631:
627:
623:
616:
613:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
577:
575:
571:
566:
562:
558:
551:
548:
537:
533:
526:
523:
512:
508:
502:
499:
488:
484:
478:
476:
474:
470:
465:
461:
457:
450:
447:
436:
432:
426:
423:
416:
412:
409:
408:
404:
402:
397:
393:
391:
386:
383:
380:
376:
367:
365:
362:
360:
359:
350:
348:
346:
342:
338:
330:
328:
324:
320:
316:
314:
306:
304:
303:unnecessary.
301:
300:takings claim
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
270:
267:
263:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:Case opinions
237:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:Chief Justice
174:
173:
171:
166:
163:adjudication.
160:
155:
150:
145:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
107:
104:
101:
97:
94:
93:Oral argument
91:
87:
83:
82:
77:
74:
70:
66:
63:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
39:
35:
25:
20:
697:
695:
679:, retrieved
674:
667:
656:. Retrieved
652:
629:
625:
615:
590:
586:
564:
560:
550:
539:. Retrieved
535:
525:
514:. Retrieved
511:casetext.com
510:
501:
490:. Retrieved
486:
463:
459:
449:
438:. Retrieved
434:
425:
399:
395:
387:
384:
378:
371:
363:
356:
354:
334:
325:
321:
317:
310:
278:
277:
276:
260:Laws applied
226:
214:
211:David Souter
202:
190:
148:
109:Case history
79:
51:
252:Concurrence
760:Categories
681:2024-08-05
658:2024-08-05
653:Justia Law
541:2024-08-05
516:2024-08-05
492:2024-08-05
440:2024-08-05
417:References
307:Background
296:certiorari
292:Lake Tahoe
130:Subsequent
58:Docket no.
599:0892-4880
133:123 F.3d
68:Citations
696:Text of
607:42842685
405:See also
388:Justice
244:Majority
123:9th Cir.
117:80 F.3d
89:Argument
713:Cornell
368:Holding
157:Holding
752:
746:
743:
737:
734:
731:Justia
728:
725:
719:
716:
710:
632:: 149.
605:
597:
466:: 439.
390:Scalia
229:
227:·
225:
217:
215:·
213:
205:
203:·
201:
193:
191:·
189:
62:96-243
704:
603:JSTOR
567:: 87.
337:Fifth
125:1996)
114:Prior
706:U.S.
595:ISSN
339:and
135:1322
81:more
73:U.S.
71:520
702:520
119:359
76:725
762::
700:,
651:.
638:^
628:.
624:.
601:.
591:12
589:.
585:.
573:^
565:28
563:.
559:.
534:.
509:.
485:.
472:^
462:.
458:.
433:.
661:.
630:6
609:.
544:.
519:.
495:.
464:9
443:.
121:(
84:)
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.