17 Cited authorities

  1. Morton v. Mancari

    417 U.S. 535 (1974)   Cited 1,251 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Indian Commerce Clause empowers Congress to “single Indians out as a proper subject for separate legislation.”
  2. Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas

    416 U.S. 1 (1974)   Cited 755 times
    Holding that a zoning ordinance restricting the use of land to "one-family dwellings" did not in-fringe upon various constitutional rights because " quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs" and it is permissible "to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people."
  3. Euclid v. Ambler Co.

    272 U.S. 365 (1926)   Cited 2,304 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"
  4. Gernatt Asphalt v. Sardinia

    87 N.Y.2d 668 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 251 times   3 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.
  5. DJL Restaurant Corp. v. City of New York

    96 N.Y.2d 91 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 85 times
    Finding separate levels of oversight can coexist when the impact is tangential
  6. Chestnut v. Ramapo

    45 A.D.3d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 36 times
    Explaining how these concerns are environmental, and discussing provision in SEQRA covering community character
  7. United States v. Town of Dryden (In re Norse Energy Corp.)

    108 A.D.3d 25 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 17 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New York state law did not preempt municipal ordinance banning hydrocarbon extraction activities
  8. Wal-Mart v. Planning Bd.

    238 A.D.2d 93 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 29 times

    February 5, 1998 Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart Rhodes, Lake Placid ( Thomas A. Ulasewicz of counsel), for petitioners. Shanley, Sweeney, Reilly Allen, P. C., Albany ( J. Michael Naughton of counsel), for respondent. YESAWICH JR., J. In October 1994, petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter petitioner) applied to respondent for a conditional use permit and site plan approval for a large retail store it proposed to construct and operate in the Town of North Elba, Essex County ( see, Matter of Wal-Mart

  9. Huntington v. Park Shore

    47 N.Y.2d 61 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 57 times
    In Dix Hills, the New York Court of Appeals upheld a zoning ordinance that permitted the creation and operation of tennis courts by private, nonprofit clubs but prohibited commercial enterprises from maintaining identical facilities for use by the general public.
  10. Frew Run Gravel Products, Inc. v. Town of Carroll

    518 N.E.2d 920 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 42 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Frew Run, we found that the preemption issue was a matter of statutory construction and not a search for implied preemption because the legislature had included an express supersession clause within the Mined Land Reclamation Law, the relevant statutory scheme (see Frew Run, 71 N.Y.2d at 130–131, 524 N.Y.S.2d 25, 518 N.E.2d 920).