HOOD
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA; BICKERSTAFF V. VASSAR COLLEGE; INTERNATIONAL PRECIOUS METALS CORP. ET AL. V. WATERS ET AL.; OLIVER ET VIR V. SAHA ET AL.; BRITTON V. MALONEY; PUNCHARD V. LUNA COUNTY COMMISSION ET AL.; REEVES ET AL. V. FRIERDICH ET AL.; VONDERHEIDE V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, BRODSKY ET AL. V. UNION LOCAL 306, MOTION PICTURE PROJECTIONISTS, VIDEO TECHNICIANS AND ALLIED CRAFTS, I. A. T. S. E., ET AL.; CRUZ V. ANGELONE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; RAMDASS V. ANGELONE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, IN RE GULLION, FRANKS V. MARTIN ET AL.; O'NEAL V. GEORGIA; A'KU V. MOTOROLA, INC.; FORD V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; ELLIS V. ILLINOIS, IN RE HOLLOMAN; WELLS V. PHILLIPS, WARDEN; MURPHY V. CITY OF SMITHVILLE, TENNESSEE, ET AL.; SELMAN V. SANDERS, WARDEN; CHANDLER V. KENNEDY ET AL.; O'NEAL V. SINNREICH & FRANCISCO ET AL.; ABRAM V. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; HABELMAN V. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; TAYLOR V. DEES, WARDEN, ET AL.; JEFFERS V. CAIN, WARDEN, BUCHANAN V. TATE, WARDEN, IN RE AWOFOLU, RAYMOND V. WEBER, WARDEN, ET AL.; COROPUNA V. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DWYER V. DWYER; BELLO V. UNITED STATES; MCCOY V. UNITED STATES; TENACE V. NEW YORK; CLOUD V. TEXAS; LANGON V. FLORIDA; WAI CHONG LEUNG V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; HUGHES V. MILLS; CLARKE V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; DIGIOVANNI V. HENDRICKS, ADMINISTRATOR, NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON, ET AL.; WOOLVERTON V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; REYNOLDS V. ANGELONE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BOLES V. FENTON SECURITY, INC. OF COLORADO ET AL.; SHEA V. VERMONT; ROWBOTTOM V. MCDANIEL, WARDEN, ET AL.; HOLLAR V. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; ZARWELL V. MARYLAND ET AL.; STIFF V. UNITED STATES, IN RE JEFFS, BURNETT V. ROE, WARDEN, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a dissenting opinion regarding the denial of a property owner's application to rezone their land from a five-acre estate district to a one-acre estate district.
The dissenting justice argues that the denial of the rezoning application by the Commission was not supported by substantial competent evidence and that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the agency.
The property owners sought to rezone their eight-acre lot, which was adjacent to EU-2 zoned properties and Biscayne National Park. While zoning depart…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
528 U. S. 856; ante, p. 1242; ante, p. 1223; 529 U. S. 1130; ante, p. 1204; ante, p. 1205; ante, p. 1215; ante, p. 1205; ante, p. 1231; 528 U. S. 1087; ante, p. 156; 528 U. S. 1152; 529 U. S. 1007; 529 U. S. 1039; 529 U. S. 1071; 529 U. S. 1072; 529 U. S. 1072; 529 U. S. 1097; No. 99-8303. No. 99-8317. No. 99-8438. No. 99-8466. No. 99-8481. No. 99-8544. No. 99-8577. No. 99-8669. No. 99-8679. No. 99-8694. No. 99-8733. No. 99-8772. No. 99-8844. No. 99-8854. No. 99-8871. No. 99-8897. No. 99-8906. No. 99-8925. No. 99-8948. No. 99-8964. No. 99-9002. No. 99-9007. No. 99-9017. No. 99-9022. No. 99-9095. No. 99-9134. 529 U. S. 1075; 529 U. S. 1089; 529 U. S. 1101; 529 U. S. 1101; 529 U. S. 1112; 529 U. S. 1077; 529 U. S. 1115; 529 U. S. 1132; 529 U. S. 1132; 529 U. S. 1093; ante, p. 1228; ante, p. 1207; 529 U. S. 1118; ante, p. 1216; 529 U. S. 1118; 529 U. S. 1119; ante, p. 1217; ante, p. 1217; ante, p. 1218; 529 U. S. 1120; ante, p. 1208; ante, p. 1208; ante, p. 1233; ante, p. 1233; ante, p. 1219; ante, p. 1247; No. 99-9171. No. 99-9196. No. 99-9248. No. 99-9277. No. 99-9376. No. 99-9563. No. 99-5252. ante, p. 1265; ante, p. 1248; ante, p. 1219; ante, p. 1220; ante, p. 1222; and ante, p. 1260. Petitions for rehearing denied. 528 U. S. 894. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (40 total)
- Salazar-Olivares v. United States, 529 U.S. 1089 (U.S. 2000)
- Pospisil v. United States, 529 U.S. 1089 (U.S. 2000)
- Cruz v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 1087 (U.S. 2000)
- Spiteri v. Gomez, 528 U.S. 1087 (U.S. 2000)
- Ramdass v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 1152 (U.S. 2000)
- In re Holloman, 529 U.S. 1097 (U.S. 2000)
- Graham v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 1097 (U.S. 2000)
- Woodard v. Moore, 529 U.S. 1118 (U.S. 2000)
- Passee v. United States, 528 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1999)
- Gibson v. Apfel, 528 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1999)