Walker v. Stith

How courts have described this case

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

• \[E]stablishing a claim under RLUIPA’s no[n]discrimination provision ... requires evidence of 'discriminatory intent.' \
• “RLUIPA, after all, codified ‘existing Free Exercise ... rights against states and municipalities’ that discriminated against religious land use.”
• “Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[W]e vacate the district court’s June 20, 2011 ruling insofar as it concerns Rabbi Eisenbach’s standing under RLUIPA and remand for consideration”
• ‘Were there any doubt as to the type of assessment at issue, even a cursory review of the HDC’s consideration of the Chabad’s application confirms that the process was patently individualized.”
• “The [historic district commission’s] denial of the Chabad’s application, and the conditions it imposed on any renewed application, thus deprived Rabbi Eisenbach of the ability to live in the facilities as proposed, an injury that may be redressed by relief from the district court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).