Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Livingston Christian School (LCS) is a non-denominational religious school that had operated for a number of years. It sought to move to the nearby Township of Genoa, and rented space in a local church. The Town denied a special use permit that was required to operate the school. As a result of the denial, which was by a 4-3 vote, LCS brought an action claiming a violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. The District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan awarded summary judgment to the town, and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp., 858 F.3d 996, 998 (6th Cir. 2017). The decision of the court appears to fix a narrower standard in determining what constitutes a substantial burden on religious exercise under RLUIPA than had been followed in previous decisions.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
The Guaranty Law Continues to Divide Opinion
By Matthew J. Schenker and Joshua Kopelowitz
This article discusses the recent developments surrounding the constitutionality of the Guaranty Law. In particular, we address the Southern District’s view that the statute is unconstitutional and the splintered view of the statute’s constitutionality expressed by New York State courts.
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
ZBA’s Abandonment of Its Prior Determination Invalid
Denial of Area Variance Upheld
Lease of Town Property Upheld; Property Not Subject to Public Trust
East Side Rezoning Upheld Against SEQRA Challenge
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Partial Constructive Eviction Defense Recognized
Condition Precedent to Sub-Sublease Not Satisfied
Guaranty Law Does Not Bar Liquidated Damages Claim
Penalty for Improper Conversion of Residential Building
Force Majeure Clause Reduces Pandemic-Era Rent
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Contract Language Does Not Bar Purchaser’s Recovery of Prejudgment Interest