Nollan et Ux. v. California Coastal Commission
483 U.S. 825 · Decided June 26, 1987 · 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
Nollan et Ux. v. California Coastal Commission was decided on June 26, 1987 by a vote of 5–4. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice Antonin Scalia 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
- 483 U.S. 825 · 107 S. Ct. 3141 · 97 L. Ed. 2d 677 · 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2980
- Docket number
- 86-133
- Decided
- June 26, 1987
- Argued
- March 30, 1987
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- Antonin Scalia
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Dissent | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. | Majority | |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
Nollan et Ux. v. California Coastal Commission
SCDB identifiers: case 1986-163, docket 1986-163-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los AngelesLaw held unconstitutional
- Hodel v. IrvingLaw held unconstitutional
- United States v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. Debenedictis
- Federal Communications Commission v. Florida Power Corp.
- Richard Pennell and Tri-County Apartment House Owners Association v. City of San Jose and City Council of San Jose
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)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California
- Martin v. Ohio
- Federal Communications Commission v. Florida Power Corp.
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. Debenedictis
- United States v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
- Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc.
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