In the past several months, we have found that the strategic use of the Religious Land Use and institutionalized Persons Act (also known as RLUIPA) can be used to successfully persuade members of a Planning Commission or Zoning Board of Adjustment / Appeals to approve […]Read More
On this day 19 years ago, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, also known as RLUIPA. The law was passed by a unanimous Congress to enforce, by statutory right, four different constitutional prohibitions related to the development […]Read More
Although RLUIPA is mainly concerned with religious discrimination, racial animus towards a religious organization falls within the ambit of RLUIPA’s very broad protection. On February 7, 2019, the Fourth Circuit, citing the legislative history of RLUIPA, emphasized that “zoning board members or neighborhood residents explicitly offer race or […]Read More
As explained more thoroughly in “Litigating Religious Land Use Cases,” RLUIPA contains five claims under its broad statutory umbrella. And while each claim has distinct and separate elements, allclaims start with: “No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation. . . .”RLUIPA’s text […]Read More
Irish Oaks is a non-denominational Christian church founded by a group of friends in rural Lapeer County. These friends were interested in developing their relationship with God but felt out of place in traditional, formal churches. So they decided to form their own church with […]Read More
Have you ever wondered how many RLUIPA land use cases have occurred since Congress unanimously passed the law (the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) in 2000? Are you curious about the outcomes? Recently, we were asked to provide a Court with a list […]Read More
In Patricia Moore-King v. County of Chesterfield, the Court was asked if RLUIPA applies to fortune tellers. The answer is No, at least in the Fourth Circuit. Patricia Moore-King (“Moore-King” or “Plaintiff”) brought suit against the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the “County” or “Defendant”) challenging the […]Read More
The case of Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Center, Inc. v. Town of Woodboro, Wisconsin is an interesting case involving, in part, RLUIPA’S least litigated claims: unreasonable restrictions and total exclusions. Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Center, Inc. (“Eagle”) sought to construct a year-round Bible […]Read More
The Church of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (“Plaintiff” or “Church”) brought suit against the City of Markham, Illinois (“Defendant” or “City”), following the City’s denial of a special use permit to allow Plaintiff to operate a church in an area zoned residential. Upon […]Read More
The law firm of Dalton & Tomich PLC is proud to announce that it has prepared the very first comprehensive list of RLUIPA land use cases and Law Review Articles on its website, www.attorneysforlanduse.com The success rates and chronological listing of cases provide illustration of […]Read More
The attorneys of Dalton & Tomich, PLC have the experience and the knowledge to work with you to develop a legal solution that helps accomplish your goals. Our collaborative approach has helped leaders like you grow businesses and banks, develop and expand churches, and build nonprofit organizations nationwide.
In my role as Administrative Bishop for the Church of God, quite often we are faced with issues that involve local governments and municipalities. Many of these issues that arise in dealing with entities are land use related. I have found Dalton & Tomich’s experience and expertise in this area to be a valuable resource and asset in every situation.
Never one time during a year-long litigation process did Dalton & Tomich demonstrate anything other than Christ-like professionalism. They managed the legal details, while we continued to do church. How they managed themselves, managed our case, and represented our church set the table for me and our church to be where we are today.
Dalton & Tomich’s expertise and experience helped us through a very difficult legal journey, ultimately achieving a favorable outcome. Their personal interest in helping us went “above and beyond” just the call of duty.