CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
GOLF VILLAGE NORTH, LLC; TRIANGLE PROPERTIES,
INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF POWELL, OHIO; DAVID BETZ, in his official
capacity as Powell’s Director of Development,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 21-3728 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:16-cv-00668—Michael H. Watson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: August 2, 2022
Before: STRANCH, DONALD, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Penny wise, pound foolish. That’s a lesson Golf Village has
learned the hard way. The developer wants to build a “residential hotel” on its property in
Powell, Ohio. But it never filed the required zoning application. Instead, it demanded the City
confirm this use was allowed before it went through the effort. The City refused to do so without
an application. Golf Village has challenged that decision in every tribunal available. It now
argues the refusal violated procedural and substantive due process. The refusal didn’t. So,
despite years of costly litigation, Golf Village is back to the beginning: It must file a zoning
application to get an answer. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
IBRAHEEM IZZY MUSAIBLI,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 22-1013 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:18-cr-20495-1—David M. Lawson, District Judge.
Argued: June 9, 2022
Decided and Filed: August 2, 2022
Before: BOGGS, MOORE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. International terrorism raises a host of
complex legal issues, not the least regarding the rule against hearsay. For example, if a criminal
defendant is alleged to have been part of a terrorist group, then do records documenting that
group’s organizational structure, logistics, and activities qualify as statements of co-conspirators
under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E)? This interlocutory appeal poses that question.
Because the district court answered incorrectly, we REVERSE its denial of the government’s
motion to admit the evidence at issue and REMAND with instructions that this evidence may be
admitted. Consequently, the government’s motion to expedite is DENIED as moot. |
|