Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Schenck v. City of Hudson

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
114 F.3d 590 (1997)


Facts

The City of Hudson (Hudson) (defendant) established a comprehensive plan (the plan). The goals set forth in the plan included managing Hudson’s growth rate so that the rate did not exceed the capacity of the infrastructure, avoiding the need for new infrastructure so that Hudson could meet current needs, and protecting Hudson’s unique character. Chapter 1207, one of the ordinances passed by Hudson to implement the plan, required applicants for zoning certificates to construct a residential-dwelling unit in order to first receive a residential-development allotment. The allotments were distributed twice a year by lottery, but 80 percent of each distribution was reserved for a priority development pool, which included lots that had been created and had received plat approval before the ordinance’s effective date. The ordinance contained a provision for landowners who had not received an allotment after one year to petition the Hudson City Council for hardship. Mark Schenck and other landowners (plaintiffs) all qualified for the priority development pool, because the plaintiffs’ lots had received plat approval before the ordinance’s effective date. However, because all 84 applicants in the plaintiffs’ distribution were priority applicants, the distribution was done by lottery. Subsequently, the plaintiffs brought suit, seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of Chapter 1207. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, and Hudson appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Russell, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Norris, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.