Marks v. City of Chesapeake, Virginia

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming verdict that city’s zoning vote against fortune teller was “impermissibly tainted by irrational neighborhood pressure manifestly founded in religious prejudice”
• denial of permit for palmistry based on public outcry against business violated due process clause
• “As a general matter, therefore, the public’s negative attitudes, or fear, unsubstantiated by factors which are properly cognizable in a zoning proceeding, are not permissible bases for local officials’ land use decisions”
• “ ‘Such purposeful discrimination against a particular individual . . . violate[s] the Constitution even where no recognized class-based or invidious discrimination was involved.’ ” (quoting Scott v. Greenville Cnty., 716 F.2d 1409, 1420 (4th Cir. 1983)
• “ ‘Such purposeful discrimination against a particular individual . . . violate[s] the Constitution even where no recognized class-based or invidious discrimination was involved.’ ” (quoting Scott v. Greenville Cnty., 716 F.2d 1409, 1420 (4th Cir. 1983)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).