8 results for 'cat:"Zoning" AND cat:"Jurisdiction"'.
J. Schroeder remands this zoning dispute in which a group of property owners claim that the rezoning of a nearby lot in order to build a school violates their Second Amendment rights and state laws. The owners allege that based on state law, they would not be permitted to carry firearms on a private lane — which is their only entrance and exit to a public road — that divides the rezoned property. The parties request the court to use supplemental jurisdiction because, they argue, the state claims are similar enough to the Second Amendment claim that it is warranted. However, because the court does not have original jurisdiction over any of the claims, it cannot use supplemental jurisdiction and the claims must be remanded for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Schroeder, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv797, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Property, zoning, jurisdiction
J. Maze finds that challengers to a city's ban on billboards lack standing because they did not argue that the ban is unconstitutional. The ban applies to all billboards, regardless of content, so it was not a prior restraint on speech. City officials denied permit and variance applications because of the ban and were not using unconstitutionally unbridled discretion. The challengers' facial argument also failed due to the absence of discretionary decision-making by officials.
Court: USDC Northern District of Alabama , Judge: Maze, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv461, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: zoning, jurisdiction, First Amendment
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Bush finds the court in which a consent judgment is entered maintains exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute and, therefore, the property developer could not make a collateral attack on the judgment in federal court through the filing of a new lawsuit. Although the claims in the federal suit were different from those brought in the original rezoning action in state court, they would require the federal court to interpret or enforce the developer's consent judgment with the township and, therefore, the suit was barred by res judicata. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Bush, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 22-1950, Categories: Government, zoning, jurisdiction
J. Athey finds the lower court improperly declared a new property line in this real estate matter. Homeowners claim their neighbors constructed a fence on their property, and complain that bamboo that the neighbor planted is growing onto their property as well, creating a nuisance. While the lower court properly determined that the bamboo from the neighbor’s yard had encroached on the homeowner’s property creating a nuisance, it did not have jurisdiction to declare a new property line. The matter is remanded for further consideration. Reversed in part.
Court: Virginia Court Of Appeals, Judge: Athey, Filed On: August 8, 2023, Case #: 0754-22-4, Categories: Real Estate, zoning, jurisdiction