Land Use Law Day At The Seventh Circuit: "Property Owner Can Kill A Trespassing Dog That Has Irresistible Urge To Suck Eggs"

Here's an opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that's worth reading, if only to see why we like reading Judge Posner's writings:

• It uses contractions (Judge Kozinski would approve). Slip op. at 11 ("The rule doesn't apply to an order of civil contempt..."); slip op. at 5 ("No court thinks, however, that this means the state can't regulate property—can't for example enact building codes and zoning regulations even though such measures limit the property owner’s right to do what he wants with his property.")

• It makes interesting use of explanatory parentheticals for case citations. Slip op. at 5 ("Hull v. Scruggs, 2 So.2d 543 (Miss. 1941) (property owner can kill a trespassing dog that has irresistible urge to suck eggs)."). You know we're going to go read that case. Update: we now have read the case.

• It has no footnotes.

• It discusses only important issues. Slip op. at 12 ("There are some other issues, but no need to discuss them. The judgments are AFFIRMED.").

Mann v. Calumet City, No. 09-1681 (Dec. 7, 2009). Oh, the issue in the case, if you are interested, was whether a city ordinance which forbids the sale of a house without an inspection for building code compliance violates the Due Process Clause.

The court held it didn't. Slip op. at 6 ("But building codes, to which the challenged ordinance is ancillary, cannot be thought irrational. They do increase the cost of property (as do other conventional regulations of property), but if reasonably well designed they also increase its value. Without them more buildings would catch fire, collapse, become unsightly, attract squatters, or cause environmental damage and by doing any of these things reduce the value of other buildings in the neighborhood.").

In another opinion issued today, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court properly issued summary judgment in a "class of one" equal protection claim. The plaintiffs alleged the village discriminated against them when it did not expand the publicly-owned water system to its subdivisions when other subdivisions were serviced. Srail v. Village of Lisle, Nos. 08-3206 & 09-1049 (Dec. 7, 2009). The court accepted the village's assertion that it was not cost-effective to extend water service to the plaintiffs' subdivision. Slip op. at 13-14.