Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
City of Tigard
(For the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondent)
(Argued the cause for the respondent)
(Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Facts of the Case 

Florence Dolan wanted a permit from the City of Tigard to expand her store and pave her parking lot. The city agreed to grant her permit on the condition that she dedicate part of her land for (1) a greenway along a nearby creek to help alleviate runoff from the pavement, and (2) a pedestrian/bicycle path to relieve traffic congestion from the city's growing business district.


Did the city's conditions for the permit violate the 5th Amendment's "takings" clause as absorbed by the 14th Amendment's due process clause?

Decision: 5 votes for Dolan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

Yes. The Court ruled that the city did not present conclusive evidence that the walkway/bicycle path would reduce traffic congestion, and so could not require Dolan to give up her property as a condition of the permit. In addition, the city did not explain why a public greenway was necessary, as opposed to a private one. There must be an "essential nexus" between a legitimate state interest and the permit requirements (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission), and the city failed to demonstrate that the benefits would justify the requirements.

Cite this Page
DOLAN v. CITY OF TIGARD. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 25 August 2015. <>.
DOLAN v. CITY OF TIGARD, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, (last visited August 25, 2015).
"DOLAN v. CITY OF TIGARD," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed August 25, 2015,