Brief in Opposition to Certiorari in Eichenlaub v. Township of Indiana
United States Supreme Court
2007 WL 2115672 (2007)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
The Eichenlaubs (plaintiffs) owned two parcels of land in the Township of Indiana, Pennsylvania (the township) (defendant). The Eichenlaubs sought the township’s approval to use one parcel for residential use and the other to use partially for their landscaping business. The township initially refused the Eichenlaubs’ application. After a series of requirements set by the township and proposed revised plans by the Eichenlaubs, the Eichenlaubs began to publicly criticize the township for what they viewed as arbitrary actions to limit the use of their land. At this point, the Eichenlaubs argued that the township retaliated by increasing their property-tax bill tenfold and refusing to allow utility companies to serve their property, as well as a number of other actions. Consequently, the Eichenlaubs filed suit against the township under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On appeal from the district court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the actions by the township must violate the “shocks the conscience” standard in order to constitute a substantive-due-process violation of the Eichenlaubs’ rights.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
