Recent Developments in RLUIPA and Religious Land Use
The court noted that the Diocese never put forth any actual plan for the sale or deconsecration of the Church, and it did not apply to the historical commission for approval. [...]the City did not have a chance to show whether it would accommodate any potential plan of the Diocese.20 The Court went...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Urban lawyer 2014-09, Vol.46 (4), p.849-864 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 864 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 849 |
| container_title | The Urban lawyer |
| container_volume | 46 |
| creator | Dalton, Daniel P. |
| description | The court noted that the Diocese never put forth any actual plan for the sale or deconsecration of the Church, and it did not apply to the historical commission for approval. [...]the City did not have a chance to show whether it would accommodate any potential plan of the Diocese.20 The Court went on to point out that the Diocese's futility argument was also flawed because it never actually put forth a plan to demolish or alter the Church.\n132 Eagle Cove subsequently filed suit against the County and Woodboro in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging, among other things, violations of RLUIPA's exclusion and limits clauses.133 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and Woodboro on all claims.134 In particular, the district court found that neither Woodboro nor the County prohibited religious assemblies from their jurisdictions. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1728147861</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A421626424</galeid><jstor_id>44735670</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A421626424</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g240t-e14903c24ece53888e6783ff6fd289cee19cfed67080a42784697f67e093d98f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptj1tLxDAQhYMouK7-BKHgcyW35vK4rLeFgrK4zyWkk5KlbdakK_jvjawgQpmHOTN8Zw5zhhZEc1qKSrNztMA4a6xxdYmuUtpjzDChfIH4FiyMU_EAn9CHw5B1KvxYbOvd5m1VmLEtttD7zodjKuqfcZfgGl040ye4-e1LtHt6fF-_lPXr82a9qsuOcjyVQLjGzFKeIyqmlAIhFXNOuJYqbQGItg5aIbHChlOpuNDSCQlYs1Yrx5bo7nT3EMPHEdLU7MMxjjmyIZIqwqUS5I_qTA-NH12YorGDT7ZZcUoEFZzyTJUzVAcjRNOHEZzP63_8_Qyfq4XB21nD7cmwT1OIzSH6wcSvhnPJqvwi-wZhFnSJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1728147861</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Recent Developments in RLUIPA and Religious Land Use</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Dalton, Daniel P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dalton, Daniel P.</creatorcontrib><description>The court noted that the Diocese never put forth any actual plan for the sale or deconsecration of the Church, and it did not apply to the historical commission for approval. [...]the City did not have a chance to show whether it would accommodate any potential plan of the Diocese.20 The Court went on to point out that the Diocese's futility argument was also flawed because it never actually put forth a plan to demolish or alter the Church.\n132 Eagle Cove subsequently filed suit against the County and Woodboro in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging, among other things, violations of RLUIPA's exclusion and limits clauses.133 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and Woodboro on all claims.134 In particular, the district court found that neither Woodboro nor the County prohibited religious assemblies from their jurisdictions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0042-0905</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1942-6593</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: American Bar Association</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Architecture ; Bible ; Camps ; City planning and redevelopment law ; Federal court decisions ; Federal district courts ; Freedom of religion ; Inlets ; Jurisdiction ; Land use ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Litigation ; Montessori schools ; Private property ; Property ownership ; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ; Religion ; Religious aspects ; Religious buildings ; Ripeness doctrine ; State court decisions ; Temples ; Towns ; Zoning</subject><ispartof>The Urban lawyer, 2014-09, Vol.46 (4), p.849-864</ispartof><rights>2015 Amercian Bar Association</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 American Bar Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Bar Association Fall 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44735670$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44735670$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,804,58022,58255</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dalton, Daniel P.</creatorcontrib><title>Recent Developments in RLUIPA and Religious Land Use</title><title>The Urban lawyer</title><description>The court noted that the Diocese never put forth any actual plan for the sale or deconsecration of the Church, and it did not apply to the historical commission for approval. [...]the City did not have a chance to show whether it would accommodate any potential plan of the Diocese.20 The Court went on to point out that the Diocese's futility argument was also flawed because it never actually put forth a plan to demolish or alter the Church.\n132 Eagle Cove subsequently filed suit against the County and Woodboro in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging, among other things, violations of RLUIPA's exclusion and limits clauses.133 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and Woodboro on all claims.134 In particular, the district court found that neither Woodboro nor the County prohibited religious assemblies from their jurisdictions.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Architecture</subject><subject>Bible</subject><subject>Camps</subject><subject>City planning and redevelopment law</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Federal district courts</subject><subject>Freedom of religion</subject><subject>Inlets</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Montessori schools</subject><subject>Private property</subject><subject>Property ownership</subject><subject>RECENT DEVELOPMENTS</subject><subject>Religion</subject><subject>Religious aspects</subject><subject>Religious buildings</subject><subject>Ripeness doctrine</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Temples</subject><subject>Towns</subject><subject>Zoning</subject><issn>0042-0905</issn><issn>1942-6593</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptj1tLxDAQhYMouK7-BKHgcyW35vK4rLeFgrK4zyWkk5KlbdakK_jvjawgQpmHOTN8Zw5zhhZEc1qKSrNztMA4a6xxdYmuUtpjzDChfIH4FiyMU_EAn9CHw5B1KvxYbOvd5m1VmLEtttD7zodjKuqfcZfgGl040ye4-e1LtHt6fF-_lPXr82a9qsuOcjyVQLjGzFKeIyqmlAIhFXNOuJYqbQGItg5aIbHChlOpuNDSCQlYs1Yrx5bo7nT3EMPHEdLU7MMxjjmyIZIqwqUS5I_qTA-NH12YorGDT7ZZcUoEFZzyTJUzVAcjRNOHEZzP63_8_Qyfq4XB21nD7cmwT1OIzSH6wcSvhnPJqvwi-wZhFnSJ</recordid><startdate>20140922</startdate><enddate>20140922</enddate><creator>Dalton, Daniel P.</creator><general>American Bar Association</general><scope>ILT</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140922</creationdate><title>Recent Developments in RLUIPA and Religious Land Use</title><author>Dalton, Daniel P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g240t-e14903c24ece53888e6783ff6fd289cee19cfed67080a42784697f67e093d98f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Architecture</topic><topic>Bible</topic><topic>Camps</topic><topic>City planning and redevelopment law</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Federal district courts</topic><topic>Freedom of religion</topic><topic>Inlets</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Montessori schools</topic><topic>Private property</topic><topic>Property ownership</topic><topic>RECENT DEVELOPMENTS</topic><topic>Religion</topic><topic>Religious aspects</topic><topic>Religious buildings</topic><topic>Ripeness doctrine</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Temples</topic><topic>Towns</topic><topic>Zoning</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dalton, Daniel P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>The Urban lawyer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dalton, Daniel P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Recent Developments in RLUIPA and Religious Land Use</atitle><jtitle>The Urban lawyer</jtitle><date>2014-09-22</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>849</spage><epage>864</epage><pages>849-864</pages><issn>0042-0905</issn><eissn>1942-6593</eissn><abstract>The court noted that the Diocese never put forth any actual plan for the sale or deconsecration of the Church, and it did not apply to the historical commission for approval. [...]the City did not have a chance to show whether it would accommodate any potential plan of the Diocese.20 The Court went on to point out that the Diocese's futility argument was also flawed because it never actually put forth a plan to demolish or alter the Church.\n132 Eagle Cove subsequently filed suit against the County and Woodboro in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging, among other things, violations of RLUIPA's exclusion and limits clauses.133 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and Woodboro on all claims.134 In particular, the district court found that neither Woodboro nor the County prohibited religious assemblies from their jurisdictions.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>American Bar Association</pub><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0042-0905 |
| ispartof | The Urban lawyer, 2014-09, Vol.46 (4), p.849-864 |
| issn | 0042-0905 1942-6593 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1728147861 |
| source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Analysis Architecture Bible Camps City planning and redevelopment law Federal court decisions Federal district courts Freedom of religion Inlets Jurisdiction Land use Laws, regulations and rules Litigation Montessori schools Private property Property ownership RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Religion Religious aspects Religious buildings Ripeness doctrine State court decisions Temples Towns Zoning |
| title | Recent Developments in RLUIPA and Religious Land Use |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T09%3A09%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Recent%20Developments%20in%20RLUIPA%20and%20Religious%20Land%20Use&rft.jtitle=The%20Urban%20lawyer&rft.au=Dalton,%20Daniel%20P.&rft.date=2014-09-22&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=849&rft.epage=864&rft.pages=849-864&rft.issn=0042-0905&rft.eissn=1942-6593&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA421626424%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1728147861&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A421626424&rft_jstor_id=44735670&rfr_iscdi=true |