Bikur Cholim, Inc. v. Village of Suffern

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that RLUIPA claimant need not avail itself of additional procedures if they would be “futile” and that court need only locate “a final, definitive position from a local authority” for ripeness
• noting that whether zoning regulations were neutral was fact question not properly resolved at motion to dismiss stage
• noting that it would have been futile for plaintiffs to appeal the denial of their variance application, where the property plainly did not meet the criteria required for a variance
• stating that whether an action is a substantial burden is a question of fact
• dismissing equal protection class-of-one claim because “plaintiffs have made no allegations of similarly situated property owners . . . [and w]ithout any comparators[,] . . . plaintiffs’ claim under the Equal Protection Clause cannot stand”
• dismissing equal protection class-of-one claim because “plaintiffs have made no allegations of similarly situated property owners . . . [and w]ithout any comparators . . . plaintiffs’ claim under the Equal Protection Clause cannot stand”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).