I have a case brief project on Nollan v. California Coastal Commission for my business law class. I have one question with my answer that I will paste below. They would like them both to be reworded in a better context and understanding.

1. Do you agree with the utilization of the school of the majority or the dissent and why? This should be one paragraph, (3 points if addressed completely--1 point for identifying with one of the schools, another point with describing why this kind of case should have utilized that school, and an additional point for identifying why the other opinion's school was inappropriate to this case).

I agree with the utilization of the dissent or Nollan's side of the case because they have the right to keep their property private and not allow the public to take advantage of their own privacy. Private property should not be taken for public use without the dissent receiving some sort of reimbursement. The rule for this case is stated as follows "Land-use regulation does not effect a taking if it substantially advances legitimate state interests and does not deny an owner economically viable use of his land" and also concluded that a building permit upon a grant of a public easement constituted a taking of appellant's property and required the state to compensate appellants (LexisNexis).

(I only received 1 out of 3 points on this question because my teacher said it was confusing and didn't side with the Nollans) I need to pick the school you favor and write why it should be used to decide 5th amendment taking issues, and then answer why the other school would be inappropriate in deciding these issues. Please help, Thank you in advance.