Skip to content

Sheetz v. El Dorado, California

Pending petition

Docket No. Op. BelowArgument Opinion Vote Author Term
25-958 Cal. App. 3d TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Issue: Whether (1) the Takings Clause’s protection against unconstitutional permit conditions encompass an evidentiary requirement (as opposed to a legislative process) by which the government bears the burden to demonstrate that its development permit exaction complies with Dolan v. City of Tigard's “rough proportionality” standard; and (2) an impact fee can be roughly proportional when imposed on one discrete class of development (residential) for the purpose of addressing impacts caused by another discrete class of development (commercial).

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
02/09/2026Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 13, 2026)
02/20/2026Waiver of right of respondent County of El Dorado, California to respond filed.
02/25/2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2026.
03/02/2026Response Requested. (Due April 1, 2026)
03/06/2026Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 1, 2026 to May 18, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
03/12/2026Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including May 12, 2026.
03/30/2026Brief amicus curiae of Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley filed.
04/01/2026Amicus brief of Texas Public Policy Foundation submitted.
04/01/2026Amicus brief of Citizen Action Defense Fund submitted.
04/01/2026Amicus brief of The National Association of Home Builders, California Building Industry Association, Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, the National Association of Realtors and the California Association of Realtors submitted.