Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 F.3d 198 - Triomphe Investors v. City of Northwood

Triomphe Investors v. City of Northwood’s Empirical Analysis

49 F.3d 198 · 1995

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
3
states following
December 2022
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Richardson v. Township of Brady (2000), EJS Properties, LLC v. City of Toledo (2012)

9 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

1801995200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · Barnhart v. Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co. · Pearson v. City of Grand Blanc · Silver v. Franklin Township, Board of Zoning Appeals

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Bjefore [the plaintiff] can establish a violation of substantive due process he must demonstrate that he had a property interest in the use of the undeveloped parcel as a condominium complex. To do this, [the plaintiff] must prove that the [board of zoning appeals] did not have the discretion to deny [the plaintiffs] use of the land as a condominium complex if he complied with certain minimum, mandatory requirements. If the [b]oard had the discretion to deny [plaintiff] a conditional zoning certificate for a condominium complex even if he complied with certain minimum, mandatory requirements, then [plaintiff] would not have a “legitimate claim of entitlement” or a “justifiable expectation” in the approval of his plan.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “established sufficient discretion to defeat plaintiff's argument that the language of the zoning regulations created either an entitlement to the desired land use or a justified expectation in the grant of the permit. Where the challenged decision was discretionary, a plaintiff may prevail on a substantive due process claim if he”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Although the City knew that Triomphe intended to build condominium units on the property, this is insufficient to create a state law property interest in the special use permit.”). 14 . The Ohio Revised Code, § 713.10, also grants city councils discretion to approve or deny ordinances for zoning changes:”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.