InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.

In a dispute over conditions on development permits, the Court held that land-use agencies must meet the nexus and rough proportionality standards even when the condition is a payment of money or the permit is denied for refusing the condition.· AI-written

570 U.S. 595 · No. 11-1447 · 2012 term · Roberts Court

Decided Jun 25, 2013 · argued Jan 15, 2013

Due process · Due process: takings clause, or other non-constitutional governmental taking of property

Majority opinion: Samuel Alito

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Reversed and remanded. Koontz won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Florida Supreme Court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Koontz was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, even if the condition consists of a requirement to pay money, and even if the permit is denied for failure to agree to the condition. It was the first case in which monetary exactions were found to be unconstitutional conditions.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2012 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianGinsburgSotomayorKaganBreyerKennedyJ. RobertsScaliaAlitoThomas

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
KoontzOwner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels
Respondent
St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.Local governmental unit other than a county, city, town, township, village, or borough (Florida)
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 25, 2013DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. Koontz won.
  2. Jan 15, 2013ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the Florida Supreme Court: reversed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Florida trial court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

107 other argued cases since 1946 on due process: takings clause, or other non-constitutional governmental taking of property, newest first.

  1. Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan146 S. Ct. 1964Jun 23, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 1964Due process9–0Unanimous band

  2. Culley v. Marshall601 U.S. 377May 9, 2024 · 601 U.S. 377Due process6–36–3 band
  3. Devillier v. Texas601 U.S. 285Apr 16, 2024 · 601 U.S. 285Due process9–0Unanimous band

  4. Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California601 U.S. 267Apr 12, 2024 · 601 U.S. 267Due process9–0Unanimous band

  5. Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota598 U.S. 631May 25, 2023 · 598 U.S. 631Due process9–0Unanimous band

  6. Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey141 S. Ct. 2244Jun 29, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 2244Due process5–45–4 band

  7. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid141 S. Ct. 2063Jun 23, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 2063Due process6–36–3 band

  8. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania139 S. Ct. 2162Jun 21, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 2162Due process5–45–4 band
  9. Timbs v. Indiana139 S. Ct. 682Feb 20, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 682Due process9–0Unanimous band

  10. Murr v. Wisconsin137 S. Ct. 1933Jun 23, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1933Due process5–36–3 band

  11. Nelson v. Colorado137 S. Ct. 1249Apr 19, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1249Due process7–18–1 band

  12. Horne v. Department of Agriculture576 U.S. 351Jun 22, 2015 · 576 U.S. 351Due process8–18–1 band

  13. Marvin D. Horne, et al., Petitioners v. Department of Agriculture569 U.S. 513Jun 10, 2013 · 569 U.S. 513Due process9–0Unanimous band

  14. Fane Lozman, Petitioner v. the City of Riviera Beach, Florida568 U.S. 115Jan 15, 2013 · 568 U.S. 115Due process7–27–2 band

  15. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Petitioner v. United States568 U.S. 23Dec 4, 2012 · 568 U.S. 23Due process8–0Unanimous band

  16. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection et al.560 U.S. 702Jun 17, 2010 · 560 U.S. 702Due process8–0Unanimous band

  17. Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al.Landmark · Takings Clause545 U.S. 469Jun 23, 2005 · 545 U.S. 469Due process5–45–4 band

  18. San Remo Hotel, L. P., et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.545 U.S. 323Jun 20, 2005 · 545 U.S. 323Due process9–0Unanimous band
  19. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.Landmark · Takings Clause544 U.S. 528May 23, 2005 · 544 U.S. 528Due process9–0Unanimous band

  20. Allen D. Brown and Greg Hayes v. Legal Foundation of Washington et al.538 U.S. 216Mar 26, 2003 · 538 U.S. 216Due process5–45–4 band
  21. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.535 U.S. 302Apr 23, 2002 · 535 U.S. 302Due process6–36–3 band

  22. Anthony Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, et al.533 U.S. 606Jun 28, 2001 · 533 U.S. 606Due process5–45–4 band

  23. City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., and Monterey-Del Monte Dunes Corporation526 U.S. 687May 24, 1999 · 526 U.S. 687Due process9–0Unanimous band
  24. Eastern Enterprises v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, et al.524 U.S. 498Jun 25, 1998 · 524 U.S. 498Due process5–45–4 band

  25. Thomas R. Phillips, et al. v. Washington Legal Foundation, et al.524 U.S. 156Jun 15, 1998 · 524 U.S. 156Due process5–45–4 band

  26. Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency520 U.S. 725May 27, 1997 · 520 U.S. 725Due process9–0Unanimous band
  27. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Marvin K. Youpee, Sr., et al.519 U.S. 234Jan 21, 1997 · 519 U.S. 234Due process8–18–1 band

  28. Tina B. Bennis v. Michigan516 U.S. 442Mar 4, 1996 · 516 U.S. 442Due process5–45–4 band

  29. Florence Dolan v. City of TigardLandmark · Takings Clause512 U.S. 374Jun 24, 1994 · 512 U.S. 374Due process5–45–4 band
  30. David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council505 U.S. 1003Jun 29, 1992 · 505 U.S. 1003Due process6–36–3 band

  31. John K. Yee, et al. v. City of Escondido, California503 U.S. 519Apr 1, 1992 · 503 U.S. 519Due process9–0Unanimous band
  32. J. Paul Preseault, et ux. v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.494 U.S. 1Feb 21, 1990 · 494 U.S. 1Due process9–0Unanimous band
  33. United States v. Sperry Corporation et al.493 U.S. 52Nov 28, 1989 · 493 U.S. 52Due process9–0Unanimous band
  34. Duquesne Light Co. et al. v. Barasch et al.488 U.S. 299Jan 11, 1989 · 488 U.S. 299Due process8–18–1 band
  35. Richard Pennell and Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association v. City of San Jose and City Council of San Jose485 U.S. 1Feb 24, 1988 · 485 U.S. 1Due process6–27–2 band
  36. Nollan et ux. v. California Coastal Commission483 U.S. 825Jun 26, 1987 · 483 U.S. 825Due process5–45–4 band

  37. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, California482 U.S. 304Jun 9, 1987 · 482 U.S. 304Due process6–36–3 band

  38. Hodel, Secretary of the Interior v. Irving et al.481 U.S. 704May 18, 1987 · 481 U.S. 704Due process9–0Unanimous band

  39. United States v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma480 U.S. 700Mar 31, 1987 · 480 U.S. 700Due process9–0Unanimous band
  40. Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. et al. v. Debenedictis, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, et al.480 U.S. 470Mar 9, 1987 · 480 U.S. 470Due process5–45–4 band

  41. Federal Communications Commission et al. v. Florida Power Corp. et al.480 U.S. 245Feb 25, 1987 · 480 U.S. 245Due process9–0Unanimous band
  42. Macdonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo et al.477 U.S. 340Jun 25, 1986 · 477 U.S. 340Due process5–45–4 band
  43. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment et al.477 U.S. 41Jun 19, 1986 · 477 U.S. 41Due process9–0Unanimous band
  44. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. Payne et al.476 U.S. 926Jun 16, 1986 · 476 U.S. 926Due process8–18–1 band
  45. Connolly et al., Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation et al.475 U.S. 211Feb 26, 1986 · 475 U.S. 211Due process9–0Unanimous band
  46. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission et al. v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City473 U.S. 172Jun 28, 1985 · 473 U.S. 172Due process7–18–1 band
  47. United States et al. v. Locke et al.471 U.S. 84Apr 1, 1985 · 471 U.S. 84Due process6–36–3 band
  48. United States v. 50 Acres of Land et al.469 U.S. 24Dec 4, 1984 · 469 U.S. 24Due process9–0Unanimous band

  49. Ruckelshaus, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Monsanto Co.467 U.S. 986Jun 26, 1984 · 467 U.S. 986Due process7–18–1 band
  50. Hawaii Housing Authority et al v. Midkiff et al.467 U.S. 229May 30, 1984 · 467 U.S. 229Due process8–0Unanimous band

  51. Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States467 U.S. 1May 21, 1984 · 467 U.S. 1Due process9–0Unanimous band
  52. Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Commission et al.466 U.S. 198Apr 17, 1984 · 466 U.S. 198Due process8–0Unanimous band
  53. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. et al.458 U.S. 419Jun 30, 1982 · 458 U.S. 419Due process6–36–3 band

  54. Texaco, Inc., et al. v. Short et al.454 U.S. 516Jan 12, 1982 · 454 U.S. 516Due process5–45–4 band
  55. Dames & Moore v. Regan, Secretary of Treasury, et al.453 U.S. 654Jul 2, 1981 · 453 U.S. 654Due process8–18–1 band
  56. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Diego et al.450 U.S. 621Mar 24, 1981 · 450 U.S. 621Due process5–45–4 band
  57. Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc., et al. v. Beckwith, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Seminole County, et al.449 U.S. 155Dec 9, 1980 · 449 U.S. 155Due process9–0Unanimous band
  58. Pruneyard Shopping Center et al. v. Robins et al.447 U.S. 74Jun 9, 1980 · 447 U.S. 74Due process9–0Unanimous band

  59. Vaughn et al. v. Vermilion Corp.444 U.S. 206Dec 4, 1979 · 444 U.S. 206Due process6–36–3 band
  60. Kaiser Aetna et al. v. United States444 U.S. 164Dec 4, 1979 · 444 U.S. 164Due process6–36–3 band
  61. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Allard et al.444 U.S. 51Nov 27, 1979 · 444 U.S. 51Due process9–0Unanimous band

  62. United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land, More Or Less, Situated in Monroe and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania, et al.441 U.S. 506May 14, 1979 · 441 U.S. 506Due process8–0Unanimous band
  63. Leo Sheep Co. et al. v. United States et al.440 U.S. 668Mar 27, 1979 · 440 U.S. 668Due process8–0Unanimous band
  64. Penn Central Transportation Co. et al. v. New York City et al.Landmark · Takings Clause438 U.S. 104Jun 26, 1978 · 438 U.S. 104Due process6–36–3 band

  65. Alamo Land & Cattle Co., Inc. v. Arizona Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit424 U.S. 295Feb 24, 1976 · 424 U.S. 295Due process6–27–2 band
  66. Blanchette et al., Trustees of Property of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Connecticut General Insurance Corp. et al.419 U.S. 102Dec 16, 1974 · 419 U.S. 102Due process7–27–2 band
  67. Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States409 U.S. 470Jan 16, 1973 · 409 U.S. 470Due process5–45–4 band
  68. National Board of Young Men's Christian Assns. et al. v. United States395 U.S. 85May 19, 1969 · 395 U.S. 85Due process6–27–2 band
  69. United States v. Rands et ux.389 U.S. 121Nov 13, 1967 · 389 U.S. 121Due process8–0Unanimous band
  70. Goldblatt et al. v. Town of Hempstead369 U.S. 590May 14, 1962 · 369 U.S. 590Due process7–0Unanimous band

  71. Griggs v. Allegheny County369 U.S. 84Mar 5, 1962 · 369 U.S. 84Due process7–27–2 band
  72. United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.365 U.S. 624Apr 3, 1961 · 365 U.S. 624Due process6–36–3 band
  73. Armstrong et al. v. United States364 U.S. 40Jun 27, 1960 · 364 U.S. 40Due process6–36–3 band

  74. Ivanhoe Irrigation District et al. v. McCracken et al.357 U.S. 275Jun 23, 1958 · 357 U.S. 275Due process8–0Unanimous band
  75. United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co. et al.357 U.S. 155Jun 16, 1958 · 357 U.S. 155Due process7–27–2 band
  76. United States v. Dow357 U.S. 17Jun 9, 1958 · 357 U.S. 17Due process9–0Unanimous band
  77. Nelson et al., Successor Trustees, et al. v. City of New York352 U.S. 103Dec 10, 1956 · 352 U.S. 103Due process8–18–1 band
  78. United States v. Twin City Power Co. et al.350 U.S. 222Jan 23, 1956 · 350 U.S. 222Due process5–45–4 band
  79. Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States348 U.S. 272Feb 7, 1955 · 348 U.S. 272Due process5–36–3 band

  80. Berman et al., Executors, v. Parker et al.Landmark · Takings Clause348 U.S. 26Nov 22, 1954 · 348 U.S. 26Due process8–0Unanimous band

  81. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California et al.346 U.S. 346Nov 9, 1953 · 346 U.S. 346Due process8–0Unanimous band
  82. United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in the County of Fairfax, Virginia, et al.345 U.S. 344Apr 6, 1953 · 345 U.S. 344Due process6–27–2 band
  83. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al.345 U.S. 146Mar 16, 1953 · 345 U.S. 146Due process6–27–2 band
  84. United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc. et al.344 U.S. 149Dec 8, 1952 · 344 U.S. 149Due process7–27–2 band
  85. Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A. G., v. McGRATH, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian343 U.S. 205Apr 7, 1952 · 343 U.S. 205Due process8–0Unanimous band
  86. Kaufman et al. v. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S. A., et al.343 U.S. 156Apr 7, 1952 · 343 U.S. 156Due process5–36–3 band
  87. Cities Service Co. et al. v. McGRATH, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian342 U.S. 330Jan 28, 1952 · 342 U.S. 330Due process9–0Unanimous band
  88. Guessefeldt v. McGRATH, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, et al.342 U.S. 308Jan 28, 1952 · 342 U.S. 308Due process5–36–3 band
  89. United States v. Pewee Coal Co., Inc.341 U.S. 114Apr 30, 1951 · 341 U.S. 114Due process5–45–4 band
  90. United States v. Kansas City Life Insurance Co.339 U.S. 799Jun 5, 1950 · 339 U.S. 799Due process5–45–4 band
  91. United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co.339 U.S. 725Jun 5, 1950 · 339 U.S. 725Due process9–0Unanimous band
  92. United States v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.339 U.S. 261Apr 17, 1950 · 339 U.S. 261Due process7–18–1 band
  93. United States v. Commodities Trading Corp. et al.339 U.S. 121Mar 27, 1950 · 339 U.S. 121Due process6–27–2 band
  94. United States v. Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Navigation Co.338 U.S. 396Dec 12, 1949 · 338 U.S. 396Due process8–0Unanimous band
  95. McGRATH, Attorney General, As Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, v. Manufacturers Trust Co.338 U.S. 241Nov 7, 1949 · 338 U.S. 241Due process7–0Unanimous band
  96. Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States338 U.S. 1Jun 27, 1949 · 338 U.S. 1Due process5–45–4 band

  97. Propper, Receiver, v. Clark, Attorney General, As Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, et al.337 U.S. 472Jun 20, 1949 · 337 U.S. 472Due process6–27–2 band
  98. United States v. Cors337 U.S. 325Jun 13, 1949 · 337 U.S. 325Due process5–45–4 band
  99. National Labor Relations Board v. Stowe Spinning Co. et al.336 U.S. 226Feb 28, 1949 · 336 U.S. 226Due process6–36–3 band
  100. Lichter et al., Doing Business As Southern Fireproofing Co., v. United States334 U.S. 742Jun 14, 1948 · 334 U.S. 742Due process7–27–2 band
  101. United States v. John J. Felin & Co., Inc.334 U.S. 624Jun 14, 1948 · 334 U.S. 624Due process7–27–2 band
  102. Woods, Housing Expediter, v. Cloyd W. Miller Co. et al.333 U.S. 138Feb 16, 1948 · 333 U.S. 138Due process9–0Unanimous band

  103. Clark, Attorney General, As Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, v. Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A. G.332 U.S. 480Dec 8, 1947 · 332 U.S. 480Due process8–0Unanimous band
  104. Silesian-American Corp. et al. v. Clark, Attorney General, As Successor to the Alien Property Custodian332 U.S. 469Dec 8, 1947 · 332 U.S. 469Due process8–0Unanimous band
  105. United States v. Dickinson331 U.S. 745Jun 16, 1947 · 331 U.S. 745Due process9–0Unanimous band
  106. Albrecht et al. v. United States329 U.S. 599Feb 3, 1947 · 329 U.S. 599Due process7–27–2 band
  107. United States v. Carmack329 U.S. 230Dec 9, 1946 · 329 U.S. 230Due process9–0Unanimous band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.