Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Census (1)
- Cities (1)
- Congressional districts (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Due Process Clause (1)
-
- Economics (1)
- Enumeration (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Finality requirement (1)
- Funding (1)
- Judicial economy (1)
- Low-income individuals (1)
- MacDonald Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County (1)
- Minorities (1)
- Municipalities (1)
- Population (1)
- Poverty law (1)
- Property (1)
- Prudential concern (1)
- Race and law (1)
- Redistricting (1)
- Regulation (1)
- Ripeness doctrine (1)
- Takings (1)
- Takings claim (1)
- Undercounting (1)
- Variance (1)
- Vote dilution (1)
- Voters (1)
- Williamson Country Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Determining Ripeness Of Substantive Due Process Claims Brought By Landowners Against Local Governments, David S. Mendel
Determining Ripeness Of Substantive Due Process Claims Brought By Landowners Against Local Governments, David S. Mendel
Michigan Law Review
Landowners who sustain economic harm from arbitrary and capricious applications of land use regulations may sue the local government entities responsible for applying those regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the local government entities deprived them of substantive due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A landowner who brings this claim - an "as-applied arbitrary and capricious substantive due process" claim - may in appropriate cases seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's fees. Despite controversy among courts and commentators over both the definition of property interests protected by the Due Process Clause and the standard …
Why Is This Man A Moderate?, Richard A. Epstein
Why Is This Man A Moderate?, Richard A. Epstein
Michigan Law Review
A Review of William A. Fischel, Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics, and Politics
Vote Dilution And The Census Undercount: A State-By-State Remedy, Christopher M. Taylor
Vote Dilution And The Census Undercount: A State-By-State Remedy, Christopher M. Taylor
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that groups seeking to correct underrepresentation caused by the differential undercount do not have standing to sue the Secretary of Commerce but that they can sue their state governments in an effort to force them to use the best population data available in the construction of congressional districts. Part I details the deeply rooted character of the differential undercount, describes statistical means that could have been employed to adjust the 1990 census, and demonstrates that the adjusted count surpasses the official census as an accurate representation of the true population. Part II examines recent litigation that has …