Smithfield Concerned Citizens for Fair Zoning v. The Town of Smithfield, Etc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that true purpose of ordinance is irrelevant for determining whether, for purposes of due process, rational relationship exists between ordinance and any conceivable government objective
• stating that a governmental entity does not have to justify its actions by the use of any specific studies
• stating that a governmental entity does not have to justify its actions by the use of any specific studies
• holding that facial substantive due process claim which attacks zoning ordinance in its entirety and not as applied is not bound by same ripeness requirements; in reaching merits, the court held that because change of zone was consistent with comprehensive plan, attack must fail
• noting that the court’s inquiry as to whether substantive due process is satisfied is limited to “whether the rationality of [the Board’s] judgment is ‘at least debatable’”
• reviewing a facial challenge to a land use ordinance by applying the substantial relation test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).