Citations by Courts

This list includes cases known to the author. Since there is no open-access search engine for Israeli district and local court decisions, the list is partial. It is full only for the Supreme Court. The list also includes one know US Court citation. The listing is classified by the topics of the publication cited, in chronological order for each publication separately.

Note: all Israeli court decisions are delivered and published in Hebrew (recently a few are also translated into English); All High Court and Supreme Court decisions are available in Hebrew through the Supreme Court web site: www.court.gov.il; the search engine can be used to search for Alterman .…… ).  District court decisions can likewise be electronically searched, but only by paying clients.

 

I. Paper on the goals and format of outline plans in Israel published in Mishpatim (1981) (Hebrew – click to download): has been repeatedly cited and applied by the Israel Supreme Court and has in effect helped to establish – through a series of court decisions – a revised status for outline plans that accommodates current conceptions of urban planning. This new status allows for more flexible plans and direct inclusion of social and economic considerations previously thought to be outside the legal bounds of outline plans.

Israel Supreme Court:

  1. High Court. 440/80. Taig Co. Ltd., vs. Haifa District Planning Commission. Piskei Din P.D. Vol. 36(3), p. 85 [Delivered 30.6.1982]. Excerpts from the paper are cited in the decision with approval. The decision is clearly based on the paper´s position. Regarded as a major contribution to Israeli planning law.
  2. H.C. 362/82. C.A.N. Engineering and Construction Co. vs. Haifa District Planning Commission. . P.D. Vol. 37(1), p. 57 [27.12.1982]. Excerpts from the above decision where the paper is cited and applied, are re-cited with approval.
  3. H.C. 468/81. Notzar Trust Co. vs. Orbit Medi-Center. P.D. 35(4), 736. Paper cited as a reference (re: question of the legality of economic considerations in an outline plan).
  4. H.C. 2920/94. Adam, Teva VaDin (Israeli Union for Environmental Defense) vs. The National Planning Board P.D 50(3) p. 441 [28.7.1996].. Article cited, with approval, as support for the view that an outline plan should be a flexible document and may further socio-economic and environmental goals.
  5. Civil Appeal [C.A] 6291/95. Ben Yakar Gat Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. vs. The Special Planning and Building Commission for Modiin P.D 51(2) p. 825 [25.6.1997]. . Article cited, with approval, as support for the minority opinion of Supreme Court Judge Y. Tirkel.
  6. C.A. 3213/97 . Nakar vs. Hertzliyah Local Planning Commission P.D 53(4) p. 625 [31.8.1999]. . Nakar is a seminal case in Israeli planning law. The court enumerated detailed and specific guidelines for interpreting outline plans. Justice Cheshin uses the paper to establish that the interpretation of plans should be dynamic. According to the Supreme Court, several components of an outline plan are crucial (including its written provisions as well as its accompanying maps and drawings).
  7. H.C. 288/00. Adam, Teva, VaDin (Israeli Union for Environmental Defense) vs. the Minister of the Interior Tak-El 2001(3) p.808 [29.8.01]. Paper cited (by Judge Cheshin, speaking for the Court) with approval as the basis for the Court`s analysis that the National Afforestation Plan is to be interpreted as a broad statement that requires further detailed planning before it can authorize construction work.
  8. C.A. 1216/98. Ester Abutbul vs. Central District Appeals Committee P.D 55(5) p. 114 [11.7.2001]. Paper cited extensively (by Judge Rivlin) with approval, as a basis for interpreting the bounds of flexibility in an outline plan. The Judge relies on the paper to establish the need for flexibility in plans.
  9. C.A. 1054/98. Carmel Beach Development Corp. vs. Adam Teva VaDin (Israeli Union for Environmental Defense) P.D 56(3) p. 385 [4.2.2002]. Paper cited by Judge Beinish as support for the merit of including some flexibility in outline plans.
  10. Administrative Appeal 2273/03. The Light Blue Island (Ee Ha-Thelet) Co. vs. The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel Tak-El 2006(4) p.3390 [7.12.2006]. Paper cited with approval regarding the need to interpret that scope of authority of statutory plans as including social, economic and environmental goals, not only physical ones.
  11. C.A 7136/06. Koffman vs. Ludmir Tak-El 2009(1) p.754 [22.1.2009]. The court cites Nakar case [Listed above- number 6] wherein the court used the paper as a platform for establishing broad rules for the interpretation of outline plans.
  12. C.A 10112/03 . Pat vs. Essen-Katlan Tak-El 2009(4) p.2575 [4.10.2009]. The court cites Nakar case [Listed above- number 6] wherein the paper was used as a platform for establishing broad rules for the interpretation of outline plans.
  13. H.C. 5538/10 Modiin-Macabim-Reut Municipality vs. Israel (29/1/13) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base). The paper was used to support flexibility in an outline plan.
  14. Administrative Appeal 109/12 Central District Planning Commission vs. Givat Hairusim Garden ltd. (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base). The paper was used as a base for the ruling that a plan does not determine a “fixed vision of the future” but must be updated in accordance with changing needs and conceptions.
  15. Administrative Appeal 6881/07 Shimon Berger vs. Emek Hefer’s Regional Council (14.6.10) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base). The paper is used for a platform to understanding the statutory meaning of “plan”.

District Courts:

  1. Civil File (Tel Aviv) 874/89. Neve Hadar Co. vs. The State of Israel et al. Citation of the relevant sections from Taig (see 1 above).
  2. Civil Action (Tel Aviv) 1805/90 . Na’aman Co. Ltd vs. Dor Energy Co. Ltd Dinim 32(1) p.397 [21.11.1990]. . The case represents an assimilation of my argument concerning the wide ranging purposes of outline plans (socio-economic as well as physical).
  3. Administrative Appeal (Tel Aviv) 6/97 . Tenant’s Committee in Old Jaffa vs. Tel Aviv Local Planning Commission Tak-Mehozi 1999(2) p.959 [10.5.1999]. The court refers the readers to the paper, for an extensive discussion regarding outline plans.
  4. Administrative Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2011/99 . Hendelman vs. Tel Aviv Licensing Commission Tak-Mehozi 1999(2) p.278 [13.7.1999].. The court notes that it is not the case to discuss the issue of flexibility of outline plans. He refers the reader to the paper for a fuller discussion on that matter.
  5. Administrative Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1434/01. Fridman vs. Tel Aviv District Appeal Committee Tak-Mehozi 1999(2) p.959 [10.5.1999]. Justice Dr. Gabriel Kling cites Taig case [Listed above- number 1]. He then moves to discuss whether flexibility can be advanced at all costs. The court notes that the paper (and Taig case) should be read in light of property rights and their possible infringements through excessivley flexible plans.
  6. C.A. (Tel Aviv) 3301/01 . Holon Local Planning Commission vs. Ilanot HaKirya Co. Ltd Tak-Mehozi 2005(3) p.10498 [2.8.2005].. Justice Kobo refers to the paper with concurrence. The court notes that outline plans may become outdated and this may call for flexibility in their interpretation.
  7. 22.     Administrative Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2656/08. Mashiah vs. Ramat HaSharon Local Planning Commission Tak-Mehozi 2009(1) p. 6970 [15.2.2009].. The court cites Nakar case [Listed above- number 6] wherein the court used the paper as a platform for establishing broad rules for the interpretation of outline plans.
  8. Administrative petition (TLV) 2726/09 Local committee of Beit Uziel vs. Central District Planning Commission (24.8.11) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base). The paper was used as a platform for explaining the importance of flexibility of plans in order to enable the flexibility of the planning institutions.
  9. CA (TLV) 2471-06 Tomaz – construction company LTD vs. Ramat Hasharon Local Council (21/10/10) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base). The court ruling refers to the discussion in the paper on the administrative appeals process (Tel-Aviv) 1121/00 Israeli vs. Local Planning Commission (16/4/2001).

Magistrate Courts:

  1. Criminal Action (Rehovot) 2021/02 . The State of Israel, Zmora Local Planning Commission vs. Deutch Tak-Shal 2003(4) p. 25872 [23.11.2003]. The court recites Nakar case [Listed above- number 6] wherein the paper was used as a platform for establishing broad rules for the interpretation of outline plans.
  2. Criminal Action (Acre) 21729/06 . The State of Israel vs. Salah Tak-Shal 2007(3)p. 6361 [3.7.2007]. The court refers to the paper, when discussing the role of modernized planning. It concurs with the paper’s general theme, that planning is socio-economic, as well as physical.
  3. Civil Action (Haifa) 12817/07. Ohayon vs. Shahaf Tak-Shal 2009(2) p.14440 [24.5.2009]. The court cites Nakar case [Listed above- number 6] wherein the paper was used as a platform for establishing broad rules for the interpretation of outline plans.
  4. Municipal Law (Rechovot) 5773/05 State of Israel vs. Razkor Ltd. (10/10/11). Quoting: C.A. 3213/97 . Nakar vs. Hertzliyah Local Planning Commission P.D 53(4) p. 625 [31.8.1999].
  5. Municipal Law (Rechovot) 5773/05 State of Israel vs. Razkor Ltd. (10/10/11). Quoting: C.A. 3213/97 . Nakar vs. Hertzliyah Local Planning Commission P.D 53(4) p. 625 [31.8.1999].
  6. Appeal 134/14 Shilat Tama 38 LTD v. Naharia Local Planning Commission (31.12.14)

II. Paper on land expropriation and compulsory dedication for public services in Israel, published in Mishpatim (Hebrew, 1985 – click to download), as well as other publications on exactions and land expropriation. Several Supreme Court decisions have applied various aspects of my paper in Mishpatim, which presents the first comprehensive legal analysis published in Israel on compulsory land dedication, and raises many issues of distributive justice and interpretation of the law. After the paper was published and to this date these issues have become of high importance among legal analysts, planners, and real-estate professionals.

Israel Supreme Court:

  1. Civil Appeal [C.A.] 474/83 . Rishon Le’Zion Local planning commission vs. Hamami. P.D. Vol. 41 (3) p. 370 [Delivered 10.8.1987].. The chief justice of the Supreme Court, Judge Shamgar, offers an extensive obiter dictum where he cites and applies my Mishpatim paper´s position that an earlier Supreme Court decision in Feizer case was in error since it permitted deduction of compensation due for expropriation, in lieu of a permitted dedication requirement that was not exercised. Regarded as a major contribution to Israeli planning law.
  2. C. A. 761/85. Eliahu Lifshitz vs. Rishon Le’Zion Local planning commission. P.D. 46 (1) p. 342 [29.12.1991].. Mishpatim paper cited by Supreme Court chief justice Shamgar to reinforce the distinction between exemption from compensation for dedication permitted in the law, and compensation for decline in value due to plan amendment.
  3. C.A. 210/88. Pri Haaretz Co. Ltd. vs. Kfar Sabba Local Planning Commission P.D. 46(4) p. 627 [1.10.1992]. Mishpatim paper cited to support the Court’s analysis that the 40% dedication rule is not a substitute for a planning norm, but only a legal basis, which cannot be the grounds for deducting the compensation due for “worsement”.
  4. C.A. 5546/97. The Local Planning and Building Commission for Kiryat Atta vs. Holtzman P.D 55(4) p.629 [12.6.2001]. This landmark case, delivered in June 2001, has made legal history. In an expanded format of 7 (rather than 3) judges, the Supreme Court reverses itself on the Feizer doctrine about expropriations, which has dominated since the 1970s. The court specifically bases its decision to a great extent on my 1985 Mishpatim article where I present a detailed legal criticism of that decision. The article is cited, with approval and praise, 10 times in this decision, both by Judge Dorner, who gives the Court’s unanimous decision, and President Barak, who adds his own analysis. Regarded as a major contribution to Israeli planning law.
  5. C.A. 7950/00. Yehezkel Ezer vs. Haifa Local Planning Commission P.D 56(2) p.365 [24.12.2001]. The paper was cited with approval as providing guidance in expropriation cases, when the remainder of a lot would be worth less than the entire lot. The court has adopted my criticism re. the Court’s former interpretation of that clause, where the court (erroneously to my mind) narrowly interpreted the law, resulting in decreased compensation to landowners.
  6. Administrative Appeal 1975/01. Karmiel Local Planning Commission vs. Rubinstein P.D. 56(6) p. 638 [9.10.2002]. As in Ezer case (Listed above- number 27], the court agreeably refers to my opinion concerning the issue of the remainder of a lot. The case is significant because it serves to extend the idea of full (or almost full) compensation even when parts of the original (partially expropriated) plot stay at the hands of the landowner.
  7. C.A. 9749/03. Local planning and building commission for Kiryat Atta vs. Yoram Eliyahu Tak-El 2007(3) p. 3169 [22.8.2007].. Cited with approval regarding criteria for assessing the injurious affection to the remainder of a partially expropriated plot. Cited is my question regarding the legal ambiguity in the statute, whether compensation is also due for the negative externalists caused by the activities that will take place on the expropriated part, or only for the physical reduction in the size of the remainder. The court cited my argument that the correct interpretation is that such externalities should be compensable because land appraisal cannot be made “in a vacuum”. Also cited, my critical analysis of the Feizer case.
  8. Civil Appeal 8622/07 Ehud Rottman vs. Maatz – The Israel National Roads Company (14.5.12) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base). The paper is used to explain the justification for compensating expropriation.
  9. Civil Appeal 10278/09 Jonathan Eshkol vs.  Local committee Ranaana  (18/7/11) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base). The paper is referred to in the court’s explanation for the existence of the right to demand compensation.
  10. Administrative Appeal 4927/08 Minister of Interior Affairs vs. Faizola Afrimyan (16/6/11) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base). The paper is cited in the discussion of expropriation without compensation in cases where the expropriation increases the value of the land that remains.
  11. Civil Appeal 3159/09 Israel Railways vs. Sabach Beit Ada (28/4/13) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base). The paper is cited in explaining the principals for determining the rate of the compensation.
  12. Administrative Appeal 4955/07 Local committee Rannana vs. Keren Tora veavoda (26.10.10) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base). The paper is cited in the court’s explanation of the need to reduce the extent of compensation payable upon expropriation.

District Courts:

  1. Civil File 57/94. Hanna Holzman vs. The Local Planning and Building Commission for Kiryat Atta Tak-Mehozi 1997(3) p.608 [5.8.1997]. Judge Bilha Gilor applied my criticism of the Supreme Court Feizer case, featured in the 1985 Mishpatim paper on expropriations and exactions, almost verbatim, point by point. Based on my arguments, she in effect “overturns” the Supreme Court decision given 12 years earlier (the 1992 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom makes it possible, in theory, for district courts to decide in contradiction to an old Supreme Court decision). This is a daring decision regarding landowners´ rights when local authorities wish to deduct an “exaction” when expropriating a plot of land in full, which the Feizer case allowed. My paper criticized this ruling, and the District Court decision followed suit. Case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Regarded as a major contribution to Israeli planning law – served as the basis of the landmark Supreme Court´s self-reversal opinion in Holzman above (no. 26).
  2. Expedited Civil Action [H.P] (Tel Aviv) 1455/96 . Prof. Katzof vs. Central District Commision for Residential Construction Tak-Mehozi 1997(3) p.40311 [10.9.1997].. The court refers to the paper with approval, noting that reparcellation plans can be formed in order to provide for additional land for public use.
  3. Expedited Civil Action [H.P] (Haifa) 158/02. 02 Halaby vs. The State of Israel Tak-Mehozi 2004(4) p.259 [11.10.2004]. The district court relies on Supreme Court case ‘Holtzman’ [Listed above- number 26] and the corresponding citations of my paper, in order to award landowners full compensation for expropriation. The court refuses to impliment the old ‘Feizer’ ruling and establishes a tradition of compensation in accordance with Holtzman.
  4. Civil Action (Tel Aviv) 1195/99 . Bal’oum vs. Taibe Local Planning Commission Tak-Mehozi 2005(3) p.1289 [25.7.2005]. The court refers to the paper when discussing the need to deter administrative authorities from excessive expropriation.
  5. Administrative Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1433/05. Ben Shachar vs. Petah Tikva Local Planning Commission Tak-Mehozi 2007(1) p.10230 [11.3.2007]. The court cites Katzof case with approval [Listed above- number 31].
  6. Administrative Appeal 000118/99 (Haifa). Rubinstein vs. Karmiel Local Planning Commission Delivered Feb. 8 2001, Judge Bilha Gilor. Cites Mishpatim paper 4 times, on different counts, with approval, and applies the paper’s arguments on these points to the case at hand.
  7. Expedited Civil Action [HP] 1109/06. Yosef Koter vs. The State of Israel and the Ministry of Transportatoin Tak-Mehozi 2008(1) p.12300 [28.2.2008]. Cites with approval my analysis that the law distinguishes between full expropriation and partial expropriation, and my recommended rough quantitative guideline.
  8. Civil Action (Haifa) 706/96 . Yoram K vs. The State of Israel Tak-Mehozi 2008(3) p.10209 [1.9.2008]. This case further applies the Holtzman ratio decidendi [Case 26 above] and my corresponding argument which lies at its center.
  9. Civil Action (Haifa) 706/96 . Kozhinoff vs. The State of Israel Nevo Publishing [1.9.2008]. This case further applies the Holtzman ratio decidendi [Case 26 above] and my corresponding argument which lies at its center.
  10. Civil Action (Center) 1808-08/07. Simhony vs. Petah Tikva Local Planning Commission Nevo Publishing [18.6.2009]. This case further applies the Holtzman ratio decidendi [Case 26 above] and my corresponding argument which lies at its center.
  11. Civil Action (Haifa) 619/04. Hazan vs. The State of Israel-Ministry of Housing Tak-Mehozi 2009(4) p.7021 [10.12.2009].  The court reaffirms my critique regarding the (former) expansive authority to expropriate land without proper compensation.  The court also applies the Holtzman Case accordingly [Case number 26- above listed].
  12. Administrative Appeal 22458-03-15 Mayo Garden and others v. Givaat Shmuel and others (8.3.2016), Mekarkein Publishing (From: Dinim administrative (41) 961

 

III. Book: From Expropriation to Developer Agreements: Methods for Obtaining Land for Public Services (Rachelle Alterman and Miri Vitek – click here) and related publications

Israel Supreme Court:

  1. Civil Appeal 2515/94. Advocate Joseph Levy vs. The City of Haifa and the Haifa Local Planning Commission. P.D. 50 (1) p.723 (at p.734) [Delivered 25.8.1996]. Citation of the book by Rachelle Alterman with Miri Vitek re. From Expropriation to Developer Agreements: Methods for Obtaining Land for Public Services, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Technion, 1991. (Findings cited are re. the frequent practice of trading public benefits for additional development rights).
  2. Administrative Appeal 3535/03 . HaShomron Local Planning Commission vs. Keren Kayemet LeIsrael (KKL) Tak-El 2008(3)2173 [10.8.2008]. Cited with approval – my recommendation that expropriation proceedings should only be commenced after negotiated purchase has been attempted.
  3. Administrative Appeal 9264/10 N.I.L.I real estate LTD. Vs. Givat Shmuel (30.5.12) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base).

 

District Courts:

  1. Civil File (H.P.) 916/95. Concrete Co. Ltd vs. The State of Israel Tak-Mehozi 1995(4) p. 593 [17.12.1995]. Judge S. Berliner twice cites my paper “Transferring the Burden of Financing Public Services to Developers”, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Technion, 1990 (in Hebrew), with a full citation of sections that clarify the legal and planning status of “public buildings”, and its implications for the legal limits on compulsory land dedication.
  2. Expedited Civil Action [H.P] (Tel Aviv) 1455/96 . Prof. Katzof vs. Central District Commision for Residential Construction Tak-Mehozi 1997(3) p.40311 [10.9.1997]. The court refers to the book with approval, noting that reparcellation plans can be formed in order to provide for additional land for public use.
  3. Administrative Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1433/05 . Ben Shachar vs. Petah Tikva Local Planning Commission Tak-Mehozi 2007(1) p.10230 [11.3.2007].. The court cites Katzof case with approval [Listed above- number 31].
  4. Administrative Appeal (Tel Aviv) 4487/07 . Tsawalha vs. Yiron Local Planning Commission Tak-Mehozi 2009(1) p.3944 [18.1.2009]..
  5. Administrative Appeal (Haifa) 641/08 . Condominiums in the French Carmel vs. Haifa Local Planning Commission Nevo Publishing [22.12.2009].. The court relies on HaShomron case [Listed above- number 42] to infer that the expropriating authority should first negotiate with a landowner before expropriating. The case further establishes a tradition of negotiations as an alternative to one-sided acts of ‘takings’. In doing so, it adopts my recommendation as presented in the book.

Magistrate Courts:

  1. Appeal (Tel Aviv)1787/03 . Gedera Seeds Co. Ltd vs. Cross-Israel Road Co. Ltd Tak-Shal 2009(1) p.3184 [13.1.2009]. The case followed HaShomron case [Listed above- number 42]. It signifies the recent trend to encourage mitigation of conflicts and negotiations, as an alternative to one sided expropriations. In so doing it adopts my recommendation as presented in the book.

 

IV. Papers and monographs on Israel’s national land policy and the Israel 2020 Report (see under Refereed Journals and under Books and Monographs published in Israel; see also under Research Reports – Israel 2020. For a partial English version see under Chapters in Books – or click here):

Supreme Court:

  1. Civil Appeal Permission 8733/96. Robert Lendbert vs. The Israel Lands Administration P.D. 55(1) p.168 [Delivered 16.12.1999].. The report was cited, with approval, by the Supreme Court of Israel (Judge Dalia Dorner). The court noted the prevalent state of affairs (as depicted in my report) whereby plenty of Israeli tenants are leaseholders.
  2. H.C. 6698/95. H.C. 6698/95. Kaadan vs. The Israel Lands Administration P.D. 54(1) p. 258 [8.3.2000].. My article, regarding the role of Israel’s Lands Administration, is mentioned with approval. Kaadan is a significant case in Israeli jurisprudence. It interpreted the scope of authority of the Israel Lands Administration, its role as a public trustee of land, and its responsibilities in shaping equitable land policies.
  3. Civil Appeal 8116/99. Adam Teva VaDin (Israeli Union for Environmental Defense) vs. Shomron Local Planning Commission Tak-El 2001(2) p.466 [23.7.2001].. Cited, with approval, by Judge Englard, re. the need to strengthen attitudes to open-space preservation among planning authorities. Cites a paragraph from my research report re. Land Policy from Israel 2020 Project Series, 1997, p. 209.
  4. H.C. 5145/00. Local Planning and Building Commission for Hof HaSharon vs. The Minister of the Interior Tak-El 2003(1) p. 864 [6.2.2003]. Justice Cheshin, of the Supreme Court, refers to my report (from 1989) as an indication for the current weaknesses in the Israeli Planning System. He also cites my artice [in Evolving Voices in Land Use Law: A Festschrift in Honor of Daniel R. Mandelker : Land Use Law in the Face of a Rapid Growth Crisis: The Case of Mass-Immigration to Israel in the 1990’s” Wash. U.J.L. & Pol’y (2000)] as an indicator for the division of powers between local and district planning authorities in Israeli Planning.
  5. Civil Appeal ‎3901/96. Raanana Local Planning and Building Commission et al vs. Yehudit Horwitz. P.D. 56(4) p. 913 [28.1.2002].. Chief Justice Barak cites and applies a section in my Report on National Land Policy (part of the 2020 National Plan project) where I argue that Israel`s compensation rights for even minute “takings” through planning decisions is unprecedented internationally.
  6. Civil Appeal 8729/07. IronMetal Co, Ltd vs. Keren Kayemet LeIsrael (KKL) Tak-El 2009(4) p. 2242 [12.11.2009].. The court refers to my article (from 1998) regarding Israel’s Land Administration. My critique is mentioned concerning the public authority’s habit to temporarily lease state-owned land (in urban areas).

District Courts:

  1. Civil Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2005/01. Dadon vs. Israfoot Industries Ltd. Tak-Mehozi 2004(2) p.4376 [23.5.2004]. The court refers to my article, as cited in the Lendbert case [Listed above, number 49].
  2. Administrative Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1076/03. Wilder vs. Haifa District Planning Commission Tak-Mehozi 2005(1) p.11699 [30.1.2005]. My position was cited, with approval, by Judge Shetmer, re. the need to strengthen attitudes to open-space preservation among planning authorities (the court refers to my research report re. Land Policy from Israel 2020 Project Series, 1997, p. 209.)

Planning appeals committees:

“Land Policy for Israel’s Future: Projected Trends and Tools for Implementing Planning Policies”. Policy Report in the Set of Final Reports: Israel 2020: A national plan for Israel in the 21st Century. With Guy Kav Venaki. March 1997. (Hebrew). Appendix 3.

  • Administrative petition (TLV) 50776-04-15 Ofer Lazovski v. planning appeals committee Tel-Aviv, 21.10.2015 (Published in Nevo – online Legal Data Base).

 

V. Research Report with Arza Churchman on recommended housing densities
(see under Research Reports)

  1. Report cited extensively as a basis for the Central District Planning Commission’s response to an appeal against refusal of a planning application on the grounds of excessive height and density.

 

VI. Book (with Miriam Rosenstein, 1992) on Agricultural Land Preservation
(see under Books published in Israel – or click here).

  1. Civil Appeal Request 3527/96. Checheks vs. Property Tax Commissioner of Hadera City P.D. 52(5) p. 385 [25.11.1998].. Justice Beinish for the majority, relies on the book when referring to the history of agricultural land in Israel and the manner in which it was declared.
  2. H.C. 244/00. Siah Hadash Association (The Mizrahi Rainbow) vs. The Minister for National Infrastructure . Tak-El 2001(3) p.1320 [15.8.2001]. This case is the landmark decision regarding the legality of transforming state-owned agricultural land, into non-agricultural uses. It also deals with compensating farmers when changing the permitted use of agricultural land. The court mentions the book as support for its decision to issue an interim order

 

VII. Book (with Nurit Corren) on Design Control See under Books published in Israel.

  1. H.C. 5145/00. Local Planning and Building Commission for Hof HaSharon vs. The Minister of the Interior Tak-El 2003(1) p. 864 [6.2.2003]. Both the majority opinion, delivered by Judge Cheshin, and the minority opinion, by Judge Ayala Prokachia, cite sections from this book , with approval, as a basis for their opinion.

 

VIII. Paper on Weaknesses in the Israel Planning and Building Law and Directions for Reform
(see under Other Journals – or click here).

  1. Additional H.C Hearing 3201/96 . The Minister of Agriculture vs. Lod Valley Regional Council P.D. 51(3) p. 661 [23.7.1997]. Justice Or cites the paper. The court concurs with my argument that decentraliztion in the planning system is not appropriate whereby resources are scarce and coordination is crucial. This argument is used as a platform when discussing a major drainage plan in Tel Aviv’s metropolitan area.
  2. H.C. 5145/00. Local Planning and Building Commission for Hof HaSharon vs. The Minister of the Interior Tak-El 2003(1) p. 864 [6.2.2003]. The paper was cited with approval by Judge Cheshin [for further elaboration note case 52 above].

 

IX. Paper on “Land-use Law in the Face of a Rapid-Growth Crisis: The case of the mass-immigration to Israel in the 1990s” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy,(See under Papers in Refereed Journals – or click here).

Supreme Court:

  1. H.C. 5145/00. Local Planning and Building Commission for Hof HaSharon vs. The Minister of the Interior. Both the majority opinion, delivered by Judge Cheshin, and the minority opinion, by Judge Ayala Prokachia, cite sections from this book , with approval, as bases for their opinion
  2. Administrative Appeal 2528/02 . Central District Appeal Committee vs. Paz Oil Co. Ltd Tak-El 2008(2) p. 3838 [18.6.2008].. The Court refers to the paper in order to establish the rationale for Amendment 43 to the Israeli Planning and Building Law.

 

X. Book with Orli Naim on compensation for decline in property value (“taking”)
See under Books Published in Israel.

District Courts:

  1. Administrative Appeal 214/02 (Tel Aviv). Netanya Local Planning Commission vs. Mordechai Har Tak-Mehozi 2004(1) p.6586 [11.3.2004]. Delivered  by Judge Michalle Rubinstein.  The book is cited with approval as a basis for pointing to the underlying purpose of the right to compensation.
  2. Administrative Appeal 273/05 (Tel Aviv) . Gornat vs. Hadarim Local Planning Commission Tak-Mehozi 2008(3) p.15587 [22.9.2008.] . Justice Dr. Moudrik refers to the empirical findings in the book in order to reinforce his arguments. One of the major findings cited, reflects the fact that 80% of lawsuits in Israel (due to diminution in property values) were brought by private landowners who had owned single parcels, and claimed that they had suffered losses as a result of approved plans. (see also ‎C/A 3901/96 – Yehudit Horwitz – noted above where chief justice Barak cites my argument about Israeli law on compensation for takings – but draws on my Israel 2020 report rather the above book)
  3. 2001-01-11 Aliza Yaso vs. centeral appeal  הועדה ערר המחוזית לפיצויים והיטל השבחה 18.7.12 (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base).

 

XI . Book on the Land Betterment Levy in Israel. With Irit Gil. (1990,1996)
(see under Books published in Israel).

Supreme Court:

  1. CFH 3768/98. Kiryat Beit HaKerem Inc. et al vs. The Jerusalem Local Planning and Building Commission. Cited with approval by the Supreme Court in a Civil Further Hearing (a second-round procedure that the Supreme Court President may decide to allow in cases of key legal importance where the supreme court hearing had a split vote).  Delivered Dec. 23 2001.
  2. C.A. 1321/02 . Neve Binyan and Development Inc vs. Cental District Commission for Residential Construction P.D. 57(4) p. 119 [ 26.5.2003 ].. Justice Hayut mentions the book with approval when discussing the legal and political history of Betterment Levy in Israel.
  3. C.A Request 4217/04 . Femini vs. Jerusalem Local Planning Commission Tak-El 2006(4) p. 416 [22.10.2006]. The court agreeably mentions my interpretation re. the rationale for collecting only half of the alleged betterment (as opposed to a full betterment levy).
  4. Administrative Appeal 1164/04 . City of Hertzliyah vs. Yitzhaky Tak-El 2006(4) p. 3174 [5.12.2006]. . The court refers to some of the empirical findings in the book in order to illustrate the critique that some Israeli planning authorities do not always separate betterment monies, and do not use them solely for the purposes mandated by law.
  5. C.A Request 10879/02 . Kffar Sabba Bowling Co. Ltd vs. Kffar Sabba Local Planning Commission Tak-El 2006(4) p. 3262 [6.12.2006].. The court mentions my opinion which calls for deducting accompanying expenses from Bettermnet levies. However, the court does not decide on this issue on this occasion.
  6. CA Request 3002/12 Givataim Local Planning Commision v. Alik Ron (Published in Nevo – Online Legal Data – 15.7.14)

District Courts:

  1. Administrative Appeal 1122/02 (Tel Aviv) . Yitzhaky vs. City of Hertzliyah Tak-Mehozi 2003(4) p.2268 [25.12.2003.] . The Court mentions the book with approval when discussing the legal and political history of Betterment Levy in Israel.
  2. Administrative Appeal 23701-03-14 David Huri v. Hod Hasharon Local Planning Commission (Published in Nevo – Legal Data Base, 9.9.14)

Magistrate Courts:

  1. Civil Action Request (Bat Yam) 3833/00 . Ilanit HaKirya (Israel) Co. Ltd vs. Holon Local Planning Commission Dinim-Shal 23 p.354 [15.10.2001]. The Court refers to the book when forming guidelines for land appraisal. More specifically, the court adopts my argument that land valuation should not be affected by unlawful building actions which had allegedly raised land values.

 

XII. Paper – Land Readjustment: An infringement on property rights or an optimal planning instrument? Rachelle Alterman and Hedva Hevroni. 2006. (Hebrew, click to download)

Supreme Court:

  1. Administrative Appeal 5839/06. Alfred Brown (or Bar-on) vs. Chair of the District Planning and Building Commission – Central District.. Cited with approval regarding the advantages of land readjustment (“reparcellation”) since in most cases, this instrument usually created added value for all landowners, and thus that compulsory dedication is legally acceptable without a quantitative limit (though the Court adopts a somewhat different line of reasoning but comes to a similar conclusion).
  2. Administrative Appeal 5556/05 Ilana Tamir vs. Minister of interior affairs 21/7/2010 (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base).

 

District Courts:

  1. Administrative Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1001/03 . Margaliyot vs. Central District Planning Commission Tak-Mehozi 2007(1) p. 12878 [28.3.2007]. The court mentions my opinion regarding land readjustment and contrasts it with jurisprudence and other scholarly writing. This case preceded Brown case [Listed above- number 74].

Magistrate Courts:

  1. Civil Action Request (Tel Aviv) 157357/06. Benovida (Burla) vs. Ramat HaSharon Local Planning Commission Tak-Shal 2006(3) p. 5367 [23.7.2006]. The Court agrees with my opinion that reparcellation is a key planning tool, which provides for public land without necessarily infringing on landowners’ property.
  2. 2626/00 Ilan Ankawa vs. The local comity of Jerusalem, (15/1/12) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base)

 

XIII. Book on Design Guides in Israel, Co-Authored with Sara Gazit-Weitzman (2009). Published By The Center for Urban and Regional Studies (Technion, Haifa). (Legal chapter written by Nir Mualam)

  1. Administrative Appeal 8489/07. Richter vs. Special Sub-Commission of the District Planning Commission Tak-El 2009(4) p.2553 [23.11.2009]. The court discusses several types of design guides (or annexes). The court also refers to the book in order to demonstrate the wide array of design guides in Israel.

 

XIV. Paper – “Can national land ownership in Israel be justified?”, Iyunei Mishpat – Tel Aviv University Law Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, 1998. pp. 535-579 (Hebrew).

  • CA 3220/10 Hava Cohen, in the name of Mazig Azizi inheritance vs. Shlomo Haddad. (28/2/12) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base).
  • H.C. 11087/05 Hevrat HaOvdim – the general cooperative workers in Israel Ltd vs. the state of Israel (21/8/12) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base).
  • H.C. 729/10 Dror-Israel Movement vs. Israel (24.5.12) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base).
  • Civil Appeal 6051/07 Yoram Sade v. Land Authority (25/4/10) (Court’s Expert) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base)

 

XV. Book – “Will My Voice Be Heard? – Public participation and the right to be heard in planning procedures in Israel”, co-authored with Dafna Carmon, 2011   (Hebrew).

  • H.C. 973/12 Bimkom – Planners for Planning rights vs. Minister for Interior (30/5/13) (Published in Nevo –  online Legal Data-Base).

 

XVI. Book –  Shira Brand and Rachelle Alterman. 2010, “Compensation Claims for Depreciation of Property Values Due to Planning Decisions: The Law and Practice in Israel”, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Technion. 2010. (Hebrew).

  • RA Request 147/14 Tel Aviv Local Planning Commission v. Sonia Abramovich (Published in Nevo – online Legal Data Base 31.12.14)
  • Civil Action Appeal Request 6483/15 Netivei Israel – National Transport infrastructure company ltd. V. Ruth Kathan and 56 others (2.8.2016), (Published in Nevo – online Legal Data Base.

 

XVII. 2010 Paper – Decline in Land Values Due to Planning Regulations: , An International Comparative Analysis as a Basis for Legal Reform in Israel. Mekarkein – Real Estate Law Journal Sept. (Hebrew).

  • Civil Action Appeal Request 6483/15 Netivei Israel – National Transport infrastructure company Ltd. V. Ruth Kathan and 56 others (2.8.2016), (Published in Nevo – online Legal Data Base.
  • Objection 22/2014 Beit Nekofa Ltd. V. Netivei Israel – National Transport infrastructure company Ltd. 31.3.16 Netivei Israel – National Transport infrastructure company ltd.

XIII. Alterman, Rachelle. 1999, Between Privatization and Continued National Ownership: A Future Land Policy for Israel, Floesheimer Research Institute, Jerusalem, 1999. (Heb., 76 pp.). 

  • Objection 22/2014 Beit Nekofa Ltd. V. Netivei Israel – National Transport infrastructure company Ltd. 31.3.16 Netivei Israel – National Transport infrastructure company ltd.

 

Citations by US Courts

Paper on linkage-exactions policy in the U.S.A.,Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law (1988)
(see under Papers in Refereed Journals)

  • 121 N.J. 550; 583 A.2d 277; 1990 N.J. Lexis 316. Cited by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Holmdel Builders Assoc. v. Township of Holmdel. Prof. D. Mandelker describes Holmdel as “an important case upholding a linkage requirement but not applying the nexus test.” [In letter, Dec. 29, 1991).