Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ex parte Chesnut

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 22, 2016No. 1140731Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShaw, Justice

As to case no. 2140042, I concur in the result to affirm. As explained below, as to case no. 2140043, I respectfully dissent from this Court’s decision to reverse and remand.

The residential-zoning scheme in this case has a default rule: A front yard must have a minimum depth of 30 feet from the street. There is an exception: The front yard of an undeveloped lot must be within five feet of the depth of the average front yard of the surrounding developed lots. It seems that the exception contemplated the situation where a house is to be built on an undeveloped lot in an otherwise established…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Alabama Department of Revenue v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Co.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API