Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hornstein v. Barry

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided June 20, 1989No. 83-242Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFerren, Associate Judge

I concur in Part III C (“Uncompensated Taking”) of the opinion for the court, but I respectfully dissent from Part III B (“Delegation, Standardlessness, and Due Process”) for the reasons set forth in Part II of the vacated opinion of the division, Hornstein v. Barry, 530 A.2d 1177, 1181-85 (D.C.1987). I add only a few comments.

I

The majority opinion states that the Council of the District of Columbia “could have made the ban on conversion [to condominiums] absolute,” ante at 534 n. 8, without violating due process. The court implies that this constitutional power to prohibit all conversion…

2Cases cited7 opinions

City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
Posadas De Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto RicoSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
Washington Ex Rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. RobergeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
Thomas Cusack Co. v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1917

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.