Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: About More Than Moratoria

Abstract

Abstract In the June 2002 issue, we were pleased to feature commentaries from nine distinguished land-use attorneys on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (122 S. Ct. 1465). The opinion has already had a swift and substantial impact, providing grist for continuing education programs, conferences, law review articles and, as of late September, cited in five federal district courts, in four federal courts of appeals, the federal claims court, the Supreme Courts of Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota, as well as the Courts of Appeals in Ohio, Texas, and Washington. [See, eg., Barefoot v. City of Wilmington, 37 Fed. Appx. 626 (U.S. App., 4th Cir.) (Decided June 10, 2002); Ken Leahy Constr. v. City of Gladstone, 36 Fed. Appx. 311 (U.S. App., 9th Cir.) (Decided June 4, 2002); Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1339 (U.S. App., Fed. Cir.) (Decided July 19, 2002); Conti v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334 (U.S. App., Fed. Cir.) (Decided May 29, 2002); Machipongo Land & Coal Co. v. Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 799 A.2d 751 (Pa. 2002)]