Supreme Court sides with owners in fight over graveyard mandate

close tovideo Supreme court is set to rule on important cases such as the term comes to a close

Fox News senior judicial analyst judge Andrew Napolitano, the high court decisions breaks on gerrymandering and idem.

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the people can sue in Federal court if they believe state or local governments have against their property rights, siding with a Pennsylvania woman, the fight, your city over an alleged graveyard on their land.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Rose Mary Knick, who tried to bring a lawsuit in Federal court, after their city, Scott, Pennsylvania, passed a regulation that someone with a cemetery on their land, in order to open to the public during the day.


Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the court of auditors in its opinion in kink v. Township of Scott, to say that a person tried to sue in your town, finds himself in a “Catch-22.”

“He will not go to Federal court without the state court first; but when he goes to state court and loses, his claims will be excluded in Federal court,” Roberts wrote, adding that “we now see that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden” on the owner.

In this case, a city official several grave found stones on kink-s of arable land in Pennsylvania, but it is controversial whether it is actually a small family cemetery on your property.

Knick argues that the passing of the regulation in 2012, and their application to their local officials essentially under your property and open it to the public, without paying you for it.

A Federal court threw buckling case, ruling that she had to go to state court first.

Because of the Supreme Court judgment, the kink will now be able to pursue the case in Federal court.

Kink’s lawyers argued that the owners with complaints of buckling would often prefer to take their cases to Federal court, because you can see, they are as objective as before state courts, they said, could as to the influence of local politics.


“This decision is a very long time coming for Rose, and other owners who have already the Federal court room doors slammed in their faces when they said compensation for a government taking of their private property,” kink-attorney J. David Breemer said in a statement.

To start before the decision on Friday, the local governments had the power, which is a case of buckling, which was filed in state court, and move it to Federal court, but the citizens do not have the opportunity to present their cases at the Federal level.

A 1985 was the decision of the Supreme court, denied to people with property rights claims, such as kink’s, goes to the Federal court of justice.

The Supreme court has cancelled the Friday ruling, to write the decision, that it was “not only wrong” but also “extraordinarily ill-founded.”

Meanwhile, justice Elena Kagan, who criticized in a dissent for herself and her liberal colleagues refer to their conservative colleagues for the repeal of the previous case, in a dissenting opinion, written by judge Stephen Breyer last month, in another case, where the court split on ideological lines in turning a precedent. Breyer wrote that the decision “can only lead to questions that, in the cases in which the court overrule more.”

“Well, that didn’t take long,” Kagan wrote. “Now, the question once again.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular