Site Loader

& # 8211 ; Nollan Vs. CCC Essay, Research Paper

Environmental Law

Nollan vs. CCC

Abstraction of:

483 U.S. 825, 97 L. Ed.2d 677

James Patrick Nollan, et

uxor, Appellant

V.

California Coastal

Commission.

Case Definition:

The instance is Nollan versus the California Coastal Commission. The

Nollans were the appellates against a determination made by the California

Coastal Commission ( CCC ) .

The Nollans had been renting a belongings on the California seashore with

which they had an option to purchase. The belongings lies straight at the pes

of the Pacific Ocean and is a premier piece of existent estate on the

California Coast. The belongings had been used by the Nollans to lease out

during the summer months to vacationists. At the terminal of the Nollans?

rental they took the option to buy the land and began fixing for

the footings of purchase by the old land proprietor. Among those footings was

the razing of the little deteriorating cottage that the Nollans had

been renting. The Nollans had planned to spread out the construction from the

little cottage that it was to a three sleeping room house more complimentary

to the environing places and their demands. In order to get down devastation

of the belongings and get down reconstructing the site the Nollans had to procure

a license from the California Coastal Commission. Upon subjecting the

license application, the CCC found that the license should be granted on

the status that the Nollans provide public entree to the beach and to

the local county park, which lay adjacent to the belongings. This

proviso called for the Nollans to utilize a part of their land to be

used as a public paseo to the beach and park. The Nollans protested

to the status, but the CCC overruled the expostulation and granted the

license with the status intact.

Case Decision:

The Nollans filed a request to the Ventura County Superior Court

inquiring that the status to provide easement be removed from their

license. The Nollans? statement was that there was non adequate grounds to

support the developments restricting of public entree to the beach. The

statement was agreed upon by the tribunal and the instance was remanded to the

California Coastal Commission for a full evidentiary hearing on the

issue of public entree to the beach.

The CCC held a populace hearing which led to further factual findings

which reaffirmed the demand for the status. The CCC? s statement was

that the edifice of the new construction would restrict position of the ocean,

and hence limit entree to the populace who had full rights to utilize the

beach. To counterbalance for the restrictions on the public the Nollans

would hold to supply entree to the beach from their Pr

operty. The CCC

besides noted that all of the other developments on the same piece of land of land

had been conditioned likewise in holding to supply public entree to the

ocean.

The Nollans filed a auxiliary request for a writ of administrative

mandamus ( a writ that would order a public functionary or organic structure to follow

with a specified responsibility issued by a superior tribunal ) . The Nollans statement

was that the license status violated the Takings Clause in the V

Amendment, and besides in the XIV Amendment of the Constitution.

The tribunal agreed that the administrative record did non supply for in

demoing the being of inauspicious impact on the populaces? entree to the

ocean. The tribunal granted the writ of mandamus, and directed that the

public entree status be removed from the license.

The CCC appealed the instance in the California Court of Appeal and won the

determination. The Court of Appeal found an mistake in the Supreme Courts

reading of the Coastal Act which mandates public entree to any

class of developments on the seashore. The Court of Appeal besides found

that the Takings claim was unsubstantiated by the Nollans. The license

status did take from the value of the land, but did non curtail them

of sensible usage of their belongings.

The Nollans so appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The

statement made by the Nollans continued to go around around the Returns

Clause in the V Amendment. The Supreme Court found that the demand

of the license merely put a limitation on the usage of the belongings and non

a? taking? of the belongings. The Supreme Court besides held the California

State Constitution to hold standing, and upheld the opinion made by the

Court of Appeals.

Reasoning for Decision:

I believe that the ground the Supreme Court decided as it did was that

its reading of the California State Constitution provided for the

authorization of the CCC? s license ordinance. The portion within the provinces

fundamental law says that entree to any navigable Waterss shall non be

limited by any individual when it is required for any public intent. The

? navigable H2O? clause infers the existent usage of the H2O and non the

beach itself. The Supreme Court did non desire to do a instance of this for

step ining in provinces? fundamental laws is awful concern ; and there was

non a large trade refering the linguistic communication of the jurisprudence from either of the

parties. I think that a similar instance could be argued assailing the

Fundamental law of the State of California refering the navigable Waterss

clause. I would still hold to hold with the CCC? s license status of

leting public entree to the beach, because I like the beach and am in

no place to buy land surrounding it so I need entree.

349

Post Author: admin