PF Dev. Grp., LLC 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.
- explaining that in fraudulent omission or concealment cases, “it is well-nigh impossible for plaintiffs to plead all the necessary facts with particularity, given that those facts will often be in the sole possession of the defendant”
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.