A connection between a permit condition demanding dedication of land or payment and a legitimate governmental interest that would justify outright denial of the permit.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Disproportionate Land Dedication
Noreen Nguyen seeks a permit to expand her store. The city conditions approval on her dedicating a strip of land for a bike path. The city offers no evidence that the path's size matches the traffic increase from the expansion. The condition fails the required connection test.
Easement Condition Challenged
Naveen Nanda applies to build a larger home. The county grants the permit only if he conveys a public beach easement across his lot. The easement does not mitigate any specific harm from the home expansion. The condition lacks the necessary link to a permit denial ground.
Neil Nair wants a permit to subdivide land. The city demands a cash payment for park improvements when he refuses to dedicate open space. The payment demand has no demonstrated tie to the subdivision's effects. Refusal to issue the permit triggers scrutiny under the connection standard.
Inevitable Discovery Link
Police obtain a confession from Noah Nakamura without proper warnings. Officers later locate the victim's body through an independent search already underway. The body evidence is admissible because the search path supplies the required connection to lawful discovery.
Nix v. Williams (Williams II)467 U.S. 431 (1984)
On December 24, 1968, ten-year-old Pamela Powers disappeared from a YMCA building in Des Moines, Iowa, where she had accompanied her parents to watch an athletic contest.
Williams was seen leaving the YMCA carrying a large bundle wrapped in a blanket. A fourteen-year-old boy who helped open his car door reported seeing two skinny white legs inside it.
Williams' car was found the next day 160 miles east in Davenport, Iowa. Items of the child's clothing along with an army blanket were recovered at a rest stop on Interstate 80 near Grinnell between Des Moines and Davenport.
A warrant issued for Williams' arrest. On December 26 the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation organized a search with two hundred volunteers divided into teams that began twenty-one miles east of Grinnell and moved westward through Poweshiek County into Jasper County. Searchers checked all roads, ditches, culverts, abandoned farm buildings, and other places where a small child's body could be hidden. The search area was marked off in grids on highway maps.
Williams surrendered to police in Davenport and was arraigned. After his attorneys arranged for no questioning during transport, two Des Moines detectives took him into custody for the return drive.
During the trip Detective Leaming spoke to Williams about predicted snow and the parents' right to a Christian burial. Williams then directed the officers to the child's shoes, the blanket, and ultimately the body itself.
The body lay next to a culvert in a ditch beside a gravel road in Polk County. It was roughly two and one-half miles from where one search team had stopped when the search was suspended at 3 p.m.
Williams was indicted for first-degree murder. At his first trial the evidence of the body was admitted over objection. He was convicted. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court reversed in Brewer v. Williams on the ground that the statements were obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
At the second trial in 1977 the prosecution introduced evidence of the condition of the body, articles and photographs of clothing, and autopsy results without offering Williams' statements or showing that he had directed police to the body. The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the body would have been discovered within a short time in essentially the same condition by the continuing search. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed.
On federal habeas corpus the District Court denied relief after an independent review. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Nikhil Narayan challenges federal spending on religious schools as a taxpayer. He shows his tax dollars flow directly to the challenged program. The suit proceeds because the financial link satisfies the standing requirement for constitutional claims.
Flast v. Cohen392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)
Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. That statute authorized federal grants under Titles I and II to state and local educational agencies.
Seven individuals who paid federal income taxes filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. They sued the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Commissioner of Education in their official capacities.
The complaint alleged that federal funds appropriated under the Act were being disbursed with the consent and approval of the defendants. Those funds were being used to finance instruction in reading, arithmetic, and other subjects in religious schools and to purchase textbooks and instructional materials for use in such schools.
The complaint attacked the specific criterion of 20 U.S.C. § 241e(a)(2) that to the extent consistent with the number of educationally deprived children in the school district of the local educational agency who are enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools, such agency has made provision for including special educational services and arrangements in which such children can participate. The plaintiffs alleged that these expenditures constituted compulsory taxation for religious purposes in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
They requested a declaratory judgment that the expenditures were unauthorized or alternatively that the Act was unconstitutional to that extent together with an injunction restraining approval of further expenditures for the challenged purposes. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. A three-judge district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1253 and the Court noted probable jurisdiction.
Norton Bank sues Natalie Norris in State A over a contract formed elsewhere. Norris has no office, agents, or transactions in State A. The court dismisses because no connection exists between the claim and any forum activity by Norris.
Hanson v. Denckla357 U.S. 235, 254 (1958)
In 1935 Dora Browning Donner, then a domiciliary of Pennsylvania, executed a trust instrument in Delaware naming the Wilmington Trust Company as trustee. The corpus consisted of securities. Mrs. Donner reserved the income for life and retained a power of appointment over the remainder exercisable by inter vivos deed or will. She also retained the rights to amend, alter, or revoke the agreement, to change the trustee, and to require the consent of a trust advisor she appointed for sales of assets, investments, and participation in reorganizations.
In 1944 Mrs. Donner became domiciled in Florida and remained there until her death in 1952. On December 3, 1949, while in Florida, she executed both her will and an inter vivos power of appointment. The appointment directed $200,000 to each of two trusts benefiting her grandchildren Donner Hanson and Joseph Donner Winsor, with the balance appointed to her executrix. Mrs. Donner died on November 20, 1952. Her will was admitted to probate in Florida, naming Elizabeth Donner Hanson as executrix.
Fourteen months after the death, residuary legatees Katherine N. R. Denckla and Dorothy B. R. Stewart petitioned a Florida chancery court for a declaratory judgment concerning property passing under the residuary clause. Personal service was made on the executrix and beneficiaries. Nonresident defendants including the Wilmington Trust Company and the Delaware Trust Company were served by ordinary mail and local publication under Florida statutes. The Delaware trustee did not appear. After the Florida suit began, the executrix filed a declaratory judgment action in Delaware to determine rights to the trust assets held there. All trust companies and most beneficiaries appeared in the Delaware proceeding.
The Florida chancellor initially ruled he lacked jurisdiction over the nonresident trustees because no personal service had been made and the trust corpus was outside Florida. He proceeded as to appearing parties and held the power of appointment testamentary and void under Florida law, so that the $400,000 passed under the residuary clause. The Delaware Chancellor ruled the trust and appointment valid under Delaware law and that the corpus had been properly paid to the appointees. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the jurisdictional ruling, held Florida law applied, and affirmed that the trust was invalid and the appointment ineffective. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed its own judgment and refused to accord full faith and credit to the Florida decree.
The United States Supreme Court postponed the question of jurisdiction in the Florida appeal and granted certiorari to the Delaware Supreme Court. Both state supreme court judgments are before the Court.
What must the government prove to satisfy the nexus requirement in exaction cases?
The government must show an essential connection between the demanded dedication or payment and a legitimate interest that would justify denying the permit outright. The link must address impacts caused by the proposed development itself.
Supporting sources
Does the nexus test apply to monetary demands as well as land dedications?
Yes. The standards governing required connections and rough proportionality extend to permit denials based on rejected monetary conditions as well as physical dedications of property.
Supporting sources
How does the nexus requirement function in specific personal jurisdiction analysis?
Each plaintiff's claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum. Similarity of claims among plaintiffs is insufficient without that claim-specific connection to forum activity.
Supporting sources
nexus
between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated," Flast v. Cohen , 392 U. S., at 102, and the necessary degree of contentiousness, Golden v. Zwickler , 394 U. S.…