Town of Hollywood v. Floyd Where the defendant-developers wanted to put a subdivision on a dangerous curve on a narrow road, the plaintiff-town did not violate the developers’ equal protection rights when the town required the developers to conduct a traffic study. The developers failed to point to any similarly situated developments that received different treatment: Stono Plantation was approved long before the town adopted its ordinances; Wide Awake Park is a public park rather than a subdivision, was already developed when the town acquired it, and required consolidation rather than subdivision of lots; and Holly Grove is a low-income, “planned development” subject to a different approval process than residential subdivisions.
Moore-King v. County of Chesterfield, Va. A Virginia county may require a “spiritual counselor” who offers psychic readings to obtain a business license and follow local zoning laws; the 4th Circuit says she is entitled to some First Amendment protection, but the county has not unconstitutionally abridged her free speech rights, nor has it violated RLUIPA or plaintiff’s right to equal protection.
Bevivino v. Mount Pleasant Board of Zoning Appeals Where the town ordinance required a showing that the proposed telecommunications tower would “not endanger the health and safety of residents,” the applicants met that requirement:
Historic Charleston Foundation v. City of Charleston Where every other property in the 400 block of King Street is zoned 3X (a maximum building height of three times the distance from the facade of the building to the center of the street), there is a considerable amount of property adjoining the rezoned building that falls within the proposed classification.
Wyndham Enterprises, LLC v. City of North Augusta Residents’ unsubstantiated concerns about increased traffic and decreased property values wasn’t enough to support the defendant-city’s denial of appellants’ request for a special exception to open a fireworks store in a commercial district.
We reverse the circuit court’s order upholding the denial of appellants’ request.
Huggins, t/a SADISCO of Md. v. Prince George’s County, Md. A property owner who operated a salvage automobile wholesaling business on a parcel adjacent to Andrews Air Force Base’s CERCLA Superfund site, and whose business was cited for numerous county code violations, loses an appeal of the dismissal of its due process and state law claims against Prince George’s County, Md., for shutting down the salvage business pursuant to a consent order; the 4th Circuit says the owner failed to prove oral contracts under Maryland law.
Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t Inc. v. Kurtz A group of local volunteer fire and rescue departments cannot sue county officials on a claim the county reduced funding in retaliation for plaintiffs’ opposition to local legislation; the 4th Circuit affirms dismissal of the suit by the district court, who declined to inquire into defendants’ alleged illicit motive behind an otherwise facially valid budgetary enactment.
Hutchins v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor A U.S. Postal Service letter carrier who won a personal-injury lawsuit against a South Carolina town after she fell into a manhole must reimburse the Department of Labor for benefits she received under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act; the 4th Circuit affirms a decision that the town qualifies as a “person other than the U.S.” under 5 U.S.C. § 8132.
Freemantle v. Preston Although the common law does not give a taxpayer standing to seek damages arising from a county council’s agreement to a $1,000,000 severance package for a county employee, the Freedom of Information Act gives the taxpayer standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
Singh v. City of Greenville Between April 1, 2004 and June 16, 2006, Greenville police responded to 901 calls to Travel Inn. The second highest number of calls made to a Greenville hotel during the same period was 581, the third highest was 407, and police responded to fewer than 300 calls at each of the other hotels in the city.
Next Page »