Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 1038

529ORD Unit: $PT1

[10-09-01 14:49:26] PGT: ORD1PP (Prelim. Print)

ORDERS

1049

529 U. S.

March 27, 2000

addition to anti-development attitudes and vesting problems,
property owners and developers are confronting decisions of state
courts which either ignore or do not follow the ‘essential nexus’
standard set forth in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n to
validate development exactions” (footnote omitted)); M. Berger,
Recent Developments in the Law of Inverse Condemnation, Q203
ALI–ABA Video Law Review Study 1, 4 (1991) (“Last year, we
noted that the California appellate courts had reacted to the Su-
preme Court’s decisions in First English Evangelical Lutheran
Church v. County of Los Angeles, (1987) 482 U. S. 304 and Nollan
v. California Coastal Comm’n (1987) 483 U. S. 825 by seeking
ways to evade their evident mandate, either procedurally or sub-
stantively”). Were they the only arguable bases for the decision
I would favor summary reversal, and remand for conduct of the
Nollan-Dolan analysis. The third basis, however, is at least a
plausible one, and raises a question that will doubtless be pre-
sented in many cases. Though I am unaware of a conﬂict of
authority on the precise point, the other grounds upon which the
court relied entitle this case to our attention, and should overcome
our usual preference for cases that present actual conﬂicts.
I
would therefore grant certiorari and schedule the case for
argument.

No. 99–1081. Town of Muldrow et al. v. Sequoyah County
Rural Water District No. 7. C. A. 10th Cir. Motions of Ala-
bama Water and Wastewater Institute et al., Water Works and
Sewer Board of Birmingham, Texas Municipal League et al., City
of Broken Arrow et al., and Greenville Utilities Commission for
leave to ﬁle briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 191 F. 3d 1192.

Jay v. AT&T Corp. et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
No. 99–1324.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consider-
tiorari denied.
ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 187 F. 3d 641.

Rehearing Denied

No. 98–9959. Gulley v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee

County, 528 U. S. 862;

No. 99–7028. Fisher v. Varner, Superintendent, State

Correctional Institution at Retreat, 528 U. S. 1092;

No. 99–7375. Champion v. United States, 528 U. S. 1128; and