Anderson Creek Partners, L.P. v. Cnty. of Harnett
Syllabus
Whether 'capacity use' fees charged to residential property developers for the purpose of expanding and improving the county's water and sewage system as a precondition for the county's concurrence in a developer's application to the Department of Environmental Quality for a required water and sewer permit constitute monetary exactions subject to review under the 'unconstitutional conditions' doctrine.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting a “categorical rule that the district court must never allow the jury to hear an expert’s testimony before ruling on it”
- “declin[ing] to address the merits” of a “skeletal argument” that included only “a bare citation” to the record
- “declin[ing] to address the merits” of a “skeletal argument” that included only “a bare citation” to the record
- Daubert allows exper testimony that is “primarily based on experience” where the expert explain: “how that experience led to the conclusion he reached”
- “[A]n appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority.”
- “We have long held that an appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority.” (quoting Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014))
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.