Iowa Wireless Servs. LP v. City of Moline, Ill.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “concerns of citizens regarding potential aesthetic or economic effects may amount to ‘substantial’ evidence in some circumstances” but holding that in that case public concern was too limited to satisfy the substantial evidence standard
• ordering defendant to grant plaintiff a special use permit “with all deliberate speed”
• concern that tower might fall not probative in light of unrefuted evidence that tower was to be designed in compliance with FCC specifications and would “collapse on itself, not topple as earlier designs could.”
• “[T]his Court finds that the generalized comments of three citizens who speculate that a fourth tower will impair the aesthetic quality of the area do not amount to ‘substantial evidence’ within the meaning of the statute, since there are already three towers near the proposed location.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).