Talk:Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Reasoning section
The "Reasoning" section of this article provides no sources. Nowhere in the full text of Scalia's ruling does he mention constructing a viewing platform on top of Nollan's house, though this sentence is in quotes, as if it had been taken directly from the ruling. He also doesn't give the parkland analogy that the author of this section provides.

The article has taken a turn for the worse. Its "Facts" and "Reasoning" now read as baldly biased that the case was wrongly decided. I am sure user Petethexman thinks it was, and I can sympathize with his plight, but even so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.170.36 (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)