Is a Local Government’s Decision ‘In Writing?’:The U.S. Supreme Court to Rule

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW
Matthew K. Schettenhelm
{"title":"Is a Local Government’s Decision ‘In Writing?’:The U.S. Supreme Court to Rule","authors":"Matthew K. Schettenhelm","doi":"10.1080/15480755.2014.949101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract An application to place a 108‐foot‐tall cell tower in a residential neighborhood. An outpouring of opposition. A public hearing. A denial—by unanimous vote on an oral motion. And a letter to the applicant stating that the application had been denied and referring to the hearing’s minutes, which reflect reasons why the board may have denied the application. These are the key facts of T‐Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, No. 13‐ 975, a case that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider this fall. The case’s central legal question is also straightforward. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that “ [a]ny decision . . . to deny a request . . . shall be in writing. ” The Court will decide whether it is sufficient for a city to state in writing that it has denied the application and to refer to the record, or whether the written denial must also describe the reasons for the city’s decision. The case could have significant impacts on how local zoning boards function and on the form their decisions must take to survive legal challenge. It also could lead to effects on local governments well beyond the narrow issue presented here.","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"43 1","pages":"4 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15480755.2014.949101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract An application to place a 108‐foot‐tall cell tower in a residential neighborhood. An outpouring of opposition. A public hearing. A denial—by unanimous vote on an oral motion. And a letter to the applicant stating that the application had been denied and referring to the hearing’s minutes, which reflect reasons why the board may have denied the application. These are the key facts of T‐Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, No. 13‐ 975, a case that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider this fall. The case’s central legal question is also straightforward. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that “ [a]ny decision . . . to deny a request . . . shall be in writing. ” The Court will decide whether it is sufficient for a city to state in writing that it has denied the application and to refer to the record, or whether the written denial must also describe the reasons for the city’s decision. The case could have significant impacts on how local zoning boards function and on the form their decisions must take to survive legal challenge. It also could lead to effects on local governments well beyond the narrow issue presented here.
地方政府的决定是“书面的”吗?这是美国最高法院的裁决
申请在居民区放置一个108英尺高的信号塔。反对的流露公开听证会。口头动议的一致否决。还有一封给申请人的信,说明申请被拒绝了,并参考了听证会的记录,其中反映了董事会可能拒绝申请的原因。这些是T - Mobile南方有限责任公司诉罗斯威尔市案(第13 - 975号)的关键事实,美国最高法院将于今年秋天审理此案。此案的核心法律问题也很直截了当。1996年的《电信法》规定,“任何决定……拒绝一个请求…应以书面形式。”法院将决定一个城市以书面声明其拒绝申请并参考记录是否足够,或者书面拒绝是否还必须描述该市决定的原因。该案件可能会对当地分区委员会的运作方式以及他们必须采取的决定形式产生重大影响,以应对法律挑战。它还可能导致对地方政府的影响远远超出这里提出的狭隘问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信