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

61 Pages Posted: 5 Sep 2010 Last revised: 17 Sep 2010

See all articles by Michael P. Seng

Michael P. Seng

The John Marshall Law School

Edward Pekarek

Pace Law School

Date Written: 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

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: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1671665 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1671665

Michael P. Seng

The John Marshall Law School ( email )

315 South Plymouth Court
Chicago, IL 60604
United States

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

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
15
Abstract Views
443
PlumX Metrics