Hawkinson v. County of Itasca

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that expenditures associated with the acquisition of the property, the removal of trees, the grading of the land and excavation created no vested right where unzoned property was later zoned residential
• holding that expenditures associated with the acquisition of the property, the removal of trees, the grading of the land and excavation created no vested right where unzoned property was later zoned residential
• explaining that where un-zoned property was later zoned residential, expenditures associated with the acquisition of the property, the removal of trees, the grading of the land or excavation created no vested right because more substantial overt acts are required
• explaining that where unzoned property was later zoned residential, expenditures associated with the acquisition of the property, the removal of trees, the grading of the land or excavation created no vested right because more substantial overt acts are required
• approving of “well-established rule that nonconforming uses are to be restricted in a way which will be conducive to their ultimately being phased out”
• applying vested rights doctrine to conclude portions of a recreational-commercial business development that had sufficiently progressed were not subject to new zoning laws that limit the previously unzoned lots- to residential use

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).