9 results for 'cat:"Constitution" AND cat:"Zoning"'.
J. Sullivan finds that the district court properly dismissed claims that changes to village zoning law that make it easier to site Orthodox Jewish places of worship in neighborhoods violate the establishment clause by promoting religion because individual plaintiffs could show standing as municipal taxpayers harmed by a loss of village revenue attributed to the new zoning law, and the citizens' group lacked associational or organizational standing to sue. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Sullivan, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: 22-2710, Categories: constitution, zoning
J. Wilkin finds the trial court properly upheld the zoning board's denial of the property owner's request for a variance. The frontage requirement for residential properties did not devalue the property, while the variance would have substantially altered the surrounding area by reducing the amount of agricultural ground. Meanwhile, the owner's failure to raise his due process and constitutional claims before the zoning board requires dismissal of that portion of his appeal. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Wilkin, Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4234, Categories: constitution, zoning, Due Process
[Consolidated.] J. Kethledge holds the lower court erroneously found the Catholic organization's religious discrimination claims were unripe. Its submission of two separate zoning applications to the township, and two subsequent denials, granted it standing to pursue an injunction based on unfair treatment. The prayer trail and stations of the cross put up by the organization are substantially similar to installments at other public parks and do not constitute a structure under the township's zoning laws; therefore, the organization is entitled to an injunction to allow the displays to be restored before its September 23 event. Reversed in part.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Kethledge, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 22-2139, Categories: constitution, Government, zoning
J. May finds the lower court properly denied a group’s petition for review. A group filed suit challenging a county resolution that zoned farmland as an Economic Revitalization Area (ERA) and granted a company a tax abatement for construction of a solar facility. Though the group has standing as the development of the facility would decrease their property values, there is no error in the zoning and declaration of the farmland as an ERA. Affirmed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: May, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 22A-PL-1738, Categories: constitution, Tax, zoning
J. Dries finds in favor of the village in a lawsuit from two property owners claiming violations of their constitutional rights because the village required them to apply for a conditional use permit to develop their property under current zoning conditions, a process the property owners claim is futile and based in part on malice from a village board member with whom they previously had business dealings. The property owners' takings, equal protection and due process claims all fail because they are either unsupported by the evidence or unripe, in part because the property owners have not applied for the conditional use permit they insist will be rejected. The property owners' claim for punitive damages also fails because they have not brought any strong evidence of personal animus on behalf of the board member. The village and board member's motion for summary judgment is granted and the case is dismissed.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Dries, Filed On: July 11, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv544, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: constitution, Property, zoning
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. Otake grants the planning department's motion to dismiss, ruling the condo complex lacks standing to bring a takings claim on behalf of its members for enforcement of a zoning ban on short-term rentals because such a claim would require individual participation by all of the members of the complex. Although each owner has theoretically suffered the same injury, there is no way to determine damages without individual participation, and because injunctive relief is not allowed in a takings claim, that portion of the suit must be dismissed.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Otake, Filed On: June 30, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv162, NOS: All Other Real Property - Real Property, Categories: constitution, Property, zoning
J. Zimmerman finds that while the zoning officials and trustees were not members of law enforcement or prosecuting attorneys and improperly issued search warrants for the property owner's farm, the lower court properly dismissed the owner's complaint. The evidence used to obtain the warrants gave the officials probable cause to conduct the administrative searches. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerman, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-1704, Categories: Administrative Law, constitution, zoning