Latest 2 Cases: Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. v. Harrison Township Board of Zoning Appeals (Government & Administrative Law), Moore v. ...

Can A City Refuse Land-Use Permits Because it Doesn’t Like the Federal Policies the Property Will be Used to Implement?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains why a local government cannot constitutionally create policy discriminating against entities that do business with the feds. Specifically, Amar discusses a situation in which the city of Farland, California, is trying to prevent a privately operated state prison facility located in that city from contracting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Read More

Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. v. Harrison Township Board of Zoning Appeals

Citation: 2020-Ohio-845

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Maureen O'Connor

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the court of common pleas affirming the decision of the Harrison Township Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) denying Appellants' request seeking approval to engage in sand-and-gravel mining, holding that the BZA erred in denying the request. Appellants filed an application for a conditional use permit to conduct sand-and-gravel mining. The BZA denied the application based on general conditions applicable to all conditional uses set forth in a Harrison Township zoning resolution. The court of common pleas and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a general standard that does not relate to public health or safety may not be applied to deny an application to conduct mining as a conditional use.

Moore v. Wainwright

Citation: 2020-Ohio-846

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Juvenile Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant's petition was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. At the time he was a seventeen-year-old juvenile, Appellant was subjected to mandatory bindover to adult court regarding several charges. Appellant later pleaded guilty to murder with a firearm specification. The court of appeals erred, rejecting Appellant's argument that he had been entitled to an amenability hearing in the juvenile court before his case could be transferred to the adult court. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that he was entitled to release because the juvenile court failed to conduct an amenability hearing and make the required findings to transfer his case to the adult court. The court of appeals dismissed the habeas petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant's petition again challenged the validity of his bindover proceedings his petition was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.