Waterfront Renaissance Associates v. City of Philadelphia

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that facial challenge to ordinance asserted in an amended complaint more than two years after ordinance was passed was barred by the statute of limitations unless it related back to the original complaint
• “Granting [the plaintiff’s] motion for leave to amend did not determine whether the claims raised in the amended complaint were sufficient to state a claim. Therefore, the law of the case doctrine does not apply.” (citation omitted)
• “Count XV does not allege the ordinance is unconstitutional because of its application to [Plaintiff]; rather it alleges the ordinance is unconstitutional in all applications. Therefore, count XV is a facial challenge.”
• motion to dismiss was not barred by prior grant of leave to amend where the court “did not decide any issue of law raised in the [defendant’s] motion to dismiss when it granted [plaintiff’s] motion to leave to amend,” and thus law of the case did not apply

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).