Sheetz v. El Dorado, California
Pending Petition
Docket No.25-958
Op. BelowCal. App. 3d
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).
Feb 9, 2026Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 13, 2026)Feb 20, 2026Waiver of right of respondent County of El Dorado, California to respond filed.
Feb 25, 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2026.
Mar 2, 2026Response Requested. (Due April 1, 2026)
Mar 6, 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 1, 2026 to May 18, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.Mar 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.
Mar 30, 2026Brief amicus curiae of Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley filed.Apr 1, 2026Brief amici curiae of National Association of Home Builders, et al. filed.Apr 1, 2026Brief amici curiae of Texas Public Policy Foundation, et al. filed.Apr 1, 2026Amicus brief of Citizen Action Defense Fund not accepted for filing. (To be resubmitted - April 07, 2026)
Apr 1, 2026Brief amicus curiae of Citizen Action Defense Fund filed. (Resubmitted - April 7, 2026)Recommended Citation: Sheetz v. El Dorado, California, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/sheetz-v-el-dorado-california/