{"title":"从未有过的公平住房法案案","authors":"Anthony W. Cresap","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Buckeye decision will undoubtedly be a necessary reference for the practitioner confronting a referendum proposed by citizens opposed to an affordable housing facility. But Buckeye is a constitutional law case, not a Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) one. Many of us were looking forward to a new U.S. Supreme Court FHA decision. The Buckeye developer did not prosecute an FHA intentional discrimination claim and, as noted, abandoned its FHA claim about disparate impact (discriminatory effect).","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Fair Housing Act Case That Never Was\",\"authors\":\"Anthony W. Cresap\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394553\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The Buckeye decision will undoubtedly be a necessary reference for the practitioner confronting a referendum proposed by citizens opposed to an affordable housing facility. But Buckeye is a constitutional law case, not a Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) one. Many of us were looking forward to a new U.S. Supreme Court FHA decision. The Buckeye developer did not prosecute an FHA intentional discrimination claim and, as noted, abandoned its FHA claim about disparate impact (discriminatory effect).\",\"PeriodicalId\":154411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394553\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394553","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The Buckeye decision will undoubtedly be a necessary reference for the practitioner confronting a referendum proposed by citizens opposed to an affordable housing facility. But Buckeye is a constitutional law case, not a Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) one. Many of us were looking forward to a new U.S. Supreme Court FHA decision. The Buckeye developer did not prosecute an FHA intentional discrimination claim and, as noted, abandoned its FHA claim about disparate impact (discriminatory effect).
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
