Goldfine v. Kelly

How courts have described this case

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

• holding claim not ripe despite a delay of the three years that passed between plaintiffs submission of a subdivision plan and the determination that the his application was futile
• finding that claim was not ripe despite a three-year application process
• finding no futility after the defendant did not appear for site visits, misinterpreted regulations to make the proposed development more difficult, and the plaintiff met “strong opposition” at Board meetings
• rejecting plaintiffs argument that defendants “were hostile to his development and conspired to prevent him from continuing the project” because the allegations were “insufficient to show that the prospect of refusal is certain and invoke the narrow futility exception”
• “Informal efforts to gain approval for land development are insufficient, by themselves, to constitute final government action.”
• “Even where the plaintiff applies for approval of a subdivision plan and is rejected, a claim is not ripe until the plaintiff also seeks variances that would allow it to develop the property.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).