Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The broad and somewhat vague definition of religious exercise in The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) has invited much litigation over what constitutes a substantial burden and even what constitutes religious exercise.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. (RLUIPA), has been a controversial statute, particularly among small municipalities. The federal statute prohibits implementation of a land use regulation “in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious … institution,” unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest 42 U.S.C. 2000cc (a)(1). The broad and somewhat vague definition of religious exercise in the statute has invited much litigation over what constitutes a substantial burden and even what constitutes religious exercise. The statute’s definition “includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C 2000cc-5(7)(A).
By Deborah E. Riegel
When developers convert occupied buildings to condominiums or, less frequently, cooperative ownership, non-purchasing tenants are protected from eviction. When tenants in those buildings acquire vested rights as non-purchasing tenants is significant for developers, because the timing dictates the number of units that will be available for sale to outside purchasers. It is, therefore, no surprise that this is a highly charged and contested issue.
Cemetery Entitled to Use Variance
ZBA Usurpation of Planning Board Authority
Statutory Factors Need to Be Considered In Denial of Area Variance
Condemnation Award Reduced
Title Insurance Inducements
Purchaser’s Willful Default/Down Payment
Tortious Interference Claim Reinstated