Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
601 U.S. 267 · Decided April 12, 2024 · 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
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado was decided on April 12, 2024 unanimously (9–0). The Court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett 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
- 601 U.S. 267 · 144 S. Ct. 893 · 218 L. Ed. 2d 224 · 2024 U.S. LEXIS 1574
- Docket number
- 22-1074
- Decided
- April 12, 2024
- Argued
- January 9, 2024
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Amy Coney Barrett
- 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)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Majority | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Concurrence | |
| Justice Neil M. Gorsuch | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Amy Coney Barrett | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson | Concurrence |
Full case caption
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California
SCDB identifiers: case 2023-025, docket 2023-025-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Devillier v. Texas
- Culley v. Marshall
- Tyler v. Hennepin CountyLaw held unconstitutional
- Pung v. Isabella County
- Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
- Pakdel v. City and County of San FranciscoLaw 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)
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