Legal Opinion
State v. Putman
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided August 1, 1988PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CHANDLER, Judge.
These cases involve the prosecution of the three named defendants for violation of South Bethany Ordinance 3-85 § 4, requiring certain property owners in the town to have revetment (“rip-rapping”) installed on their property. The defendants have challenged the validity of the ordinance on various grounds.
I. BACKGROUND
The challenged ordinance provides as follows:
“SECTION 4 Rip-rapping Requirements and Specifications. All real property east of Ocean Drive shall be required to be rip-rapped and maintained in accordance with the conditions and specifications set forth in…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. CausbySupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- City of Trenton v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1923
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. HickeyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
- Cantinca v. FontanaSupreme Court of Delaware · 2005
- O'Brien v. CoburnConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
- Goldberg v. City of Rehoboth BeachSuperior Court of Delaware · 1989
- Scureman v. JudgeCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1999
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.