Heal v. Richmond County Savings Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the plaintiff’s zoning application was properly “subject to the (alleged) political machinations of the Calumet City government”
• finding that neither municipal “business license” nor “special use permit . . . qualifies as property” for similar reasons
• dismissing taking claim based on plaintiff’s failure to allege that the property cannot be used for any purpose
• dismissing conspiracy where complaint contained “not a whiff of conspiratorial agreement” between the individual defendants beyond unsupported conclusions
• dismissing a partial regulatory takings claim were the plaintiff did “not plead enough information to evaluate” this factor
• dismissing Fifth Amendment takings claim for failure to state a claim where the complaint failed to “plead enough information to evaluate” two of the factors

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).