Albery v. Reddig’s Empirical Analysis
718 F.2d 245 · 1983
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably Brown v. Brienen (1983), Spence v. Zimmerman (1989)
18 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Parratt v. Taylor · Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. · Briscoe v. W · Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“asks the federal courts to correct substantive mistakes that may have been made in applying local ordinances in the early stages of the zoning process. The allegedly negligent errors in applying local law do not violate the plaintiffs’ due process rights as long as adequate state procedures are available to remedy those errors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“arbitrary and unreasonable or that its application bears no substantial relation to the public health, safety or morals”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“taking” always involves the new imposition of a previously nonexistent restriction, whether via a zoning enactment or some other means. Indeed, that is true of every single case on which Conroys seek to rely (Conroys Mem. 6-8). . Of course Conroys cannot argue that because they were previously unaware of any zoning restriction (as they say they were), the imposition of that restriction on them somehow violated due process. Whether in support of that untenable notion or for some other reason, they certainly make a fuss about their prior ignorance. But ignorance of zoning ordinances does not affect their validity or enforceability— Conroys "must be presumed to have acted with knowledge of the applicable zoning laws and restrictions.”
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.