Chioffi v. City of Winooski

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that an inability to develop property for its most profitable beneficial use is not a taking
• noting that an inability to develop property for its most profitable beneficial use is not a taking
• stating that where a period to restore a nonconforming use had expired, a landowner that purchases the property has no right in restoring the nonconforming use
• concluding, in rejecting claim, that temporary taking requires showing of total denial of all economically beneficial use; regulatory delay result ing from zoning board denial oí variance, granted ultimately through judicial intervention, did not constitute taking
• describing the right to exclude as one of “the fundamental incidents of ownership”
• where landowner purchased property after period to restore nonconforming use had expired, landowner had no investment-backed interest in restoring the use, and the use is no longer reasonable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).