33 Cited authorities

California Labor Stds. Enf. v. Dillingham Constr
519 U.S. 316 (1997) Cited 723 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that ERISA did not pre-empt a California statute that incentivized, but did not require, plans to follow certain standards for apprenticeship programs
Pacific Gas Elec. v. Energy Resources Comm'n
461 U.S. 190 (1983) Cited 1,172 times
Holding "that the promotion of nuclear power is not to be accomplished ‘at all costs’ "
Euclid v. Ambler Co.
272 U.S. 365 (1926) Cited 2,413 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a zoning ordinance that "greatly ... reduce[d] the value of appellee's lands and destroy[ed] their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses" constituted a "present invasion of appellee's property rights"
Robinson Twp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) Cited 162 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "explicit terms of the trust require the government to ‘conserve and maintain’ the corpus of the trust"
Gernatt Asphalt v. Sardinia
87 N.Y.2d 668 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
In Gernatt —decided after the legislature had codified Frew Run's holding in an amendment to the MLRL's supersession clause—the Town of Sardinia amended its zoning ordinance to eliminate all mining as a permitted use throughout the town.
So. Burl. Cty. N.A.A.C.P. v. Tp. of Mt. Laurel
67 N.J. 151 (N.J. 1975) Cited 300 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding land-use regulations unconstitutional if municipalities fail to provide low- and moderate-income families realistic opportunities for housing
Kamhi v. Town of Yorktown
74 N.Y.2d 423 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 101 times
In Kamhi, the Court of Appeals decided that the Town of Yorktown's local law could be authorized under the provisions of Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10(1)(ii)(d)(3), the so-called supersession authority.
Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown
302 N.Y. 115 (N.Y. 1951) Cited 265 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown (302 N.Y. 115, 124), a charge of illegal 'spot zoning' for the benefit of one owner and the detriment of other owners was dismissed as without substance. It was said that the relevant inquiry is 'whether it was accomplished for the benefit of individual owners rather than pursuant to a comprehensive plan for the general welfare of the community'.
Board of County Commissioners v. Bowen/Edwards Associates, Inc.
830 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1992) Cited 74 times 2 Legal Analyses
Rejecting implied preemption where the state's interest "is not so patently dominant over a county's interest in land-use control, nor are the respective interests of both the state and the county so irreconcilably in conflict, as to eliminate by necessary implication any prospect for a harmonious application of both regulatory schemes"
Berenson v. Town of New Castle
38 N.Y.2d 102 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 100 times
In Berenson, the plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action attacking the "validity of the [z]oning [o]rdinance of the Town of New Castle in its entirety on the ground that the ordinance exclude[d] multifamily housing from the list of permitted uses."
Section 553.1 - Statewide spacing
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 553.1 Cited 3 times
(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) of this section and absent a department order establishing spacing units, a well drilled, deepened, plugged back, or converted for the production of oil and gas cannot be located less than 660 feet from any boundary line of the lease, integrated leases or unit and cannot be closer than 1,320 feet from any other oil and gas well in the same pool. (b) Absent a department order establishing spacing units, a well which is on a lease, integrated leases
Section 553.2 - Surface restrictions
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 553.2
No well shall be located nearer than 100 feet from any inhabited private dwelling house without written consent of the owner; nearer than 150 feet from any public building or area which may be used as a place of resort, assembly, education, entertainment, lodging, trade, manufacture, repair, storage, traffic or occupancy by the public; nearer than 75 feet to the traveled part of any State, county, township, or municipal road or any public street, road or highway; or nearer than 50 feet from any public

In the Matter of Mark S. Wallach, as Chapter 7 Trustee for Norse Energy Corp. USA, Appellant,v.Town of Dryden et al., Respondents.

33 Cited authorities

Holding that ERISA did not pre-empt a California statute that incentivized, but did not require, plans to follow certain standards for apprenticeship programs

Holding "that the promotion of nuclear power is not to be accomplished ‘at all costs’ "

Holding that a zoning ordinance that "greatly ... reduce[d] the value of appellee's lands and destroy[ed] their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses" constituted a "present invasion of appellee's property rights"

Holding that the "explicit terms of the trust require the government to ‘conserve and maintain’ the corpus of the trust"

In Gernatt —decided after the legislature had codified Frew Run's holding in an amendment to the MLRL's supersession clause—the Town of Sardinia amended its zoning ordinance to eliminate all mining as a permitted use throughout the town.

Holding land-use regulations unconstitutional if municipalities fail to provide low- and moderate-income families realistic opportunities for housing

In Kamhi, the Court of Appeals decided that the Town of Yorktown's local law could be authorized under the provisions of Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10(1)(ii)(d)(3), the so-called supersession authority.

In Berenson, the plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action attacking the "validity of the [z]oning [o]rdinance of the Town of New Castle in its entirety on the ground that the ordinance exclude[d] multifamily housing from the list of permitted uses."