Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Bldg. Indus. Ass'n-Bay Area v. City of Oakland

District Court, N.D. California

Decided February 5, 2018No. Case No. 15–cv–03392–VCPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge

The City of Oakland's motion to dismiss is granted. Dismissal is with prejudice.

I

Oakland is one of at least twelve cities in California that have ordinances requiring developers to display or fund art as a condition of project approval. Under the current version of Oakland's ordinance, which was enacted in July 2017, a developer of a multifamily project with over twenty units must either: (i) spend 0.5 percent of building development costs on art displays on the site of the development or a nearby right-of-way; or (ii) pay an equivalent amount to a…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  4. Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Wooley v. MaynardSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Anderson Creek Partners, L.P. v. Cnty. of HarnettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2022
  2. Anderson Creek Partners, L.P. v. Cnty.of HarnettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2022
  3. Knight v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, TheDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2021
  4. PF Dev. Grp., LLC v. Cnty. of HarnettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2022
  5. PF Dev. Grp., LLC v. Cnty. of HarnettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2022

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API