Legal Opinion
Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation District
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided February 26, 2001No. 99SC491PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hobbs
The Breckenridge Sanitation District (the District), a special district providing waste-water services, assesses a plant investment fee (PIF) on all building projects within the District. Petitioners Marshall and Renate Krupp challenged the PIF assessment on their new residential townhouse project, arguing, inter alia, that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of property. 1 The court of appeals held that the PIF was not subject to a takings analysis. Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation Dist, 1 P.3d 178, 181-82 (Colo.App.1999). We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
I
The District is…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Armstrong v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Ltd. PartnershipTexas Supreme Court · 2004
- Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Van WykSupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
- San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority v. Cornerstone Group XXII, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2007
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.