From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...
Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
844 F.2d 461 (1988)
Facts
Coniston Corp. (plaintiff) owned several hundred acres of land within the Village of Hoffman Estates (the village) (defendant). Coniston Corp. presented a site plan for the development of office space on a 17-acre parcel of its land. The village’s ordinances required that site plans for development be first submitted to the village plan commission for its recommendation on the plans and then submitted to the village’s board of trustees for final approval or disapproval. With regard to Coniston Corp.’s site plan, the village plan commission recommended approval of the plan, although it expressed concern with the amount of vacant office space already within the village. The board of trustees then disapproved of the plan without giving a formal reason. However, at least one trustee indicated the decision was based on the amount of unused office space already within the village. Coniston Corp. filed a lawsuit, arguing that its substantive and procedural due-process rights were denied as a result of the village’s disapproval of its site plan. The district court dismissed Coniston Corp.’s complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Coniston Corp. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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.