Tcg New York, Inc. v. City Of White Plains

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction has a “relatively narrow scope”
• invalidating almost identical provisions of a local ordinance and leaving the remainder intact
• finding prohibition under 253(a) where ordinance gave the defendant city the right to reject an application based on any “public interest factors ... that are deemed pertinent by the [city.]”
• “In order for the fee to fall within th[e] savings clause [of section 253(c)], the fee must constitute ‘fair and reasonable compensation’ and must be applied ‘on a nondiscriminatory basis.’ ”
• section 253 “does not limit municipalities to charging fees that are ‘competitively neutral’ to the extent permitted by state law; it forbids fees that are not competitively neutral, period, without regard to the municipality’s intent.”
• invalidating an identical provision of the White Plains Ordinance

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).