Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.
570 U.S. 595 · Decided June 25, 2013 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. was decided on June 25, 2013 by a vote of 5–4. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 570 U.S. 595 · 133 S. Ct. 2586 · 186 L. Ed. 2d 697 · 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4918
- Docket number
- 11-1447
- Decided
- June 25, 2013
- Argued
- January 15, 2013
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- Samuel A. Alito Jr.
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Majority | |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Dissent | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Dissent | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Dissent | |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.
SCDB identifiers: case 2012-074, docket 2012-074-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Marvin D. Horne v. Department of Agriculture
- Fane Lozman v. the City of Riviera Beach
- Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States
- Horne v. Department of AgricultureLaw held unconstitutional
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
- Nelson v. ColoradoLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Agins et Ux. v. City of Tiburon
- Gurley v. Rhoden
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- General Box Co. v. United States
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States
- Fane Lozman v. the City of Riviera Beach
- Marvin D. Horne v. Department of Agriculture
- United States v. WindsorLaw held unconstitutional
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error