Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 5, 2017 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- June 5, 2017
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Alito
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. Must a litigant possess Article III standing in order to intervene of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) ? The parties do not dispute-and we hold-that such an intervenor must meet the requirements of Article III if the intervenor wishes to pursue relief not requested by a plaintiff. In the present case, it is unclear whether the intervenor seeks different relief, and the Court of Appeals did not resolve this threshold issue. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for that court to determine whether the intervenor seeks such additional relief. I In 2001, land developer Steven Sherman paid $2.7 million to purchase nearly 400 acres of land in the town of Chester, New York (Town). Sherman planned to build a housing subdivision called MareBrook, complete with 385 housing units, a golf course, an onsite restaurant, and other amenities. Sherman applied for approval of his plan and thus began a "journey through the Town's ever-changing labyrinth of red tape." Sherman v. Chester, 752 F.3d 554, 557 (C.A.2 2014). In 2012, Sherman filed this suit against the Town in New York state court. The suit concerned "the decade's worth of red tape put in place" by the Town and its regulatory bodies. Id., at 558. According to Sherman, the Town obstructed his plans for the subdivision and forced him to spend around $5.5…
Excerpt of a 15,263-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.