Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1671665
 
 

Footnotes (92)



 


 



Brief for the Respondents, City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (United States Supreme Court No. 01-1269)


Michael P. Seng


affiliation not provided to SSRN

Edward Pekarek


Pace Law School

November 20, 2002


Abstract:     
Submitted by Edward G. Kramer, Kenneth Kowalski, Diane E. Citrino, Michael P. Seng, with co-authors P. Gilbertson Barno, Eric Schnapper, David G. Oakley, Keith Levy, Edward Pekarek, with Mr. Pekarek serving as editor of the brief. Available at 2002 WL 31655015 (Appellate Brief).

I. There is sufficient evidence to permit a trier
of fact to find the existence of a discriminatory
motive....................................................... 11

A. City officials acted in concert with private
citizens to use a variety of tactics to
stop the development ................................ 12

B. The record is replete with evidence of
discriminatory intent................................ 19

C. The First Amendment does not preclude
examination of evidence of intentional
discrimination ........................................... 26

1. Voters’ rights were not chilled by a
lawsuit against City officials who violated
Equal Protection and the Fair
Housing Act ......................................... 27

2. A referendum cannot be used to carry
out illegal discrimination .................... 30

II. Respondents are withdrawing the disparate
impact claim .................................................... 31

III. The referendum violated the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment............ 32

A. Buckeye possessed a property interest ..... 33

B. The City’s actions violated substantive
due process................................................ 38

1. A referendum on quasi-judicial or
administrative land use decisions is a
per se substantive due process violation
....................................................... 39

2. The site plan referendum violates
substantive due process because it
delegates to voters the power to prohibit
a lawful use of Buckeye’s land.... 42

3. The City’s denial of Buckeye’s site
plan was arbitrary and capricious
and a denial of substantive due process
........................................................ 45

Number of Pages in PDF File: 61

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: September 5, 2010 ; Last revised: September 17, 2010

Suggested Citation

Seng, Michael P. and Pekarek, Edward, Brief for the Respondents, City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (United States Supreme Court No. 01-1269) (November 20, 2002). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1671665 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1671665

Contact Information

Michael P. Seng
affiliation not provided to SSRN
Edward Pekarek (Contact Author)
Pace Law School ( email )
80 North Broadway
White Plains, NY 10603
United States
HOME PAGE: http://www.pace.edu/page.cfm?doc_id=31582
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 268
Downloads: 13
Footnotes:  92

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.313 seconds