C. I. v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, CLERK, J. I.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the city’s regulations restricting the location of churches did not create a substantial burden on the plaintiff churches’ religious exercise
• holding that RLUIPA was 19 inapplicable because plaintiffs failed to show that the challenged regulation imposed a 20 substantial burden on religious exercise
• holding that a substantial burden “necessarily bears direct, primary, and fundamental responsibility for rendering religious exercise . . . effectively impracticable”
• holding that a zoning regulation requiring churches and some secular institutions to obtain \Special Use approval\ to operate in commercial and business areas facially neutral
• holding that law created no substantial burden under RLUIPA even though plaintiff churches \expended considerable time and money\ to relocate to certain districts
• holding that ordinance that treated churches differently was rationally related to Chicago's legitimate interest in regulating land use within its city limits and therefore complied with the Equal Protection clause

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).