Legal Opinion
Homebuilders Ass'n v. Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided January 15, 2003No. C99-0057CV; A111827PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.
Several real estate developers and a developers’ association brought this action against defendant, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (the district), a municipal corporation, alleging that the district’s resolution creating a system development charge did not comport with statutory provisions and that it violated a variety of state and federal constitutional guarantees. The trial court granted the district’s motion for partial summary judgment on the constitutional claims. Plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm.
A system development charge (SDC) is a one-time fee imposed by a government…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Palko v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Dudek v. Umatilla CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- Murray v. State of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- Small Property Owners v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- David Hill Development, LLC v. City of Forest GroveDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2010
- Butchart v. Baker CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.