Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Likewise, an appeals court may remand a case to a trial court. A remand may be a full remand, essentially ordering an entirely new trial; when an appellate court grants a full remand, the lower court's decision is "reversed and remanded." Alternatively, it may be "with instructions" specifying, for example, that the lower court must use a ...
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), more commonly Dolan v.Tigard, is a United States Supreme Court case. [1] It is a landmark case regarding the practice of zoning and property rights, and has served to establish limits on the ability of cities and other government agencies to use zoning and land-use regulations to compel property owners to make unrelated public improvements as a ...
The state appellate court affirmed, [4] but the Supreme Court of Florida reversed, holding that Nollan and Dolan did not apply because (1) Koontz's permit was denied, rather than granted subject to the unconstitutional condition, and (2) the District sought money rather than a conveyance of real property as a condition to issuing the permit. [5]
In light of this, on June 27, the Supreme Court granted Limon's petition, vacated the ruling of the Kansas Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration. After the Court of Appeals again upheld the law, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and unanimously struck down the part of the law excluding same-sex sexual ...
When the notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process requires the State to take additional reasonable steps to contact the property owner before it can sell his property. Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Court membership; Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
On Nov. 14, the appeals court said the district judge’s ruling was deficient and asked for arguments why the appeal should not be remanded back for a clearer order.
The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City (1973). [3] In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal.