When is a land use dispute a federal case? Although some perceive challenges to zoning and land use laws as local issues ripe for local resolution, some fights over land use pose constitutional questions suitable for federal adjudication. Indeed, many zoning disputes implicate substantive due process, a federally protected constitutional guarantee. A circuit split has developed regarding when plaintiffs may assert substantive due process claims in federal court. While the First and Seventh Circuits only hear such cases when the plaintiff has first brought her substantive due process claim in state court, the Second, Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits impose no such requirement. This Note argues that the First and Seventh Circuits’ st...
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson County relegated Fifth A...
The Supreme Court held in 1987 that compensation is required automatically whenever a municipality t...
This article discusses an avenue available to takings claimants so that they may open the nearly clo...
The U.S. Supreme Court’s land use jurisprudence establishes that arbitrary land use regulations viol...
The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. that challenges to the validity of land use ...
This Essay examines an important rule that bars a substantive due process action when a landowner cl...
All states guarantee constitutional due process and fairness for both judicial and quasi-judicial pr...
Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly its rulings on eminent domain and takings, ...
Two clauses of the United States Constitution figure most prominently in the debate over the constit...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that a complaint which alleged th...
Realistically, the landowner and developer know that the review of a development project in light of...
Although substantive due process theory has lost much of its force as a local policymaking tool in t...
Federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides a cause of action against persons who use state or local law...
In differing ways, the three related doctrines of public use, substantive due process, and takings a...
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson County relegated Fifth A...
The Supreme Court held in 1987 that compensation is required automatically whenever a municipality t...
This article discusses an avenue available to takings claimants so that they may open the nearly clo...
The U.S. Supreme Court’s land use jurisprudence establishes that arbitrary land use regulations viol...
The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. that challenges to the validity of land use ...
This Essay examines an important rule that bars a substantive due process action when a landowner cl...
All states guarantee constitutional due process and fairness for both judicial and quasi-judicial pr...
Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly its rulings on eminent domain and takings, ...
Two clauses of the United States Constitution figure most prominently in the debate over the constit...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that a complaint which alleged th...
Realistically, the landowner and developer know that the review of a development project in light of...
Although substantive due process theory has lost much of its force as a local policymaking tool in t...
Federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides a cause of action against persons who use state or local law...
In differing ways, the three related doctrines of public use, substantive due process, and takings a...
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson County relegated Fifth A...
The Supreme Court held in 1987 that compensation is required automatically whenever a municipality t...
This article discusses an avenue available to takings claimants so that they may open the nearly clo...