Larkin v. State Of Michigan Department Of Social Services

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that spacing requirement was “too broad, and is not tailored to the specific needs of the handicapped” in relation to stated government interest
• finding that proffered government interest in dispersal and integration did not justify public notice requirement under FHA
• holding that in order for facially discriminatory statutes to survive a challenge under the FHA, the defendant must demonstrate that they are “warranted by the unique and specific needs and abilities of those handicapped persons” to whom the regulations apply (citation omitted)
• discussing how a defendant’s benign motive does not prevent a statute from being discriminatory on its face
• striking down neighborhood notification 18 requirements for group homes because such a policy “would facilitate the organized 19 opposition to the home, and animosity towards its residents”
• Michigan statute restricting location of adult foster care homes and requiring neighbor notification violated and was preempted by FHAA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).