Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County, a California Nonprofit Corporation v. The City of Petaluma, a California Charter City

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that two landowners challenging a housing and zoning plan have standing to sue on their own behalf because they had “already suffered or are threatened with a direct injury”
• holding that a construction association suffered cognizable injury from a \restriction on building\ where its members \contribute[d] dues to the Association in a sum proportionate to the amount of business the builders d[id] in the area\
• stating that “the concept of the public welfare is sufficiently broad to uphold Petaluma’s desire to preserve its small town character, its open spaces and low density of population, and to grow at an orderly and deliberate pace”
• stating that “[although we assume that some persons desirous of living in Petaluma will be excluded under the housing permit limitation and that, thus, the Plan may frustrate some legitimate regional housing needs, the Plan is not arbitrary or unreasonable”
• upholding the constitutionality of a zoning or land use ordinance if it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest
• “Being neither a super legislature nor a zoning board of appeal, a federal court is without authority to weigh and reappraise the factors considered or ignored by the legislative body in passing the challenged zoning regulation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).