|
|
http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/038060.html |
WPC
ǐWW2OJ̸>)f|Ohh26j0:t[7W3,^]ck[ZYCh6 1
!N*Wj@+!e}峤kZwi1 :.VEV5(#L||1T()hv H9#XBx YX1E1c>Cܯ6s Ӑp OT?38k=aNr"'vKa2 𠑷4'RhP}:< F 0 R # 0 % 0 m B
0 0 f 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 R 0 0 " * 2 : B J R Z 0 b 0
! 0 ! 0 f" 0 > $# 0 b# 0 Z$ 0 <% 0 & 0 ' 0 ' 0 ( 0 ~) 0 2 P* 0 * 0 : ~+ 0 Y + 0 _ , 0
p, 0 z- 0 . D / 1 D + 11 0 \1 D / b3 0 3 0 6 _4 0 4 0 : 5 0 ^ 5 0 < 56 1 e q6 1 u 6 7 2 K7 0 ~ }7 0 D 7 U 6 ?8 U > u8 B * 8 U * 8 9 U- N 9 k9 9 9 9 U @ 9 : = = -F 5K 2P 6 P .W Z ` kb F 1c wi
l l D 3 m N m 0 V m V #n A Q yy y Tz 0 V { 0 D p{ D 1 { B { { | G ل ʈ b b b b t 1 t b M (
Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r ( k%$ # n x d d H P L a s e r J e t 2 2 0 0 S e r i e s P C L ,,,, 0 J : \ T E M P L A T E \ P U B L I S H . W P T {4 :i +003| x * +
( _ 2 6 2 3
. . r ( . 3Y$
k%! # n x d d
* G + G ( _ 2 5 / % ` ` h p x / 2 3
. . / % ` ` h p x /
* 8 + 8 ( _ 2 4 , "
h p x , 2 3
. . , "
h p x ,
(
Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r - - T A B L E A * 5 + 5
( _ 2 3 ` ) h p x ) 2 3
. . ) h p x )
` * 2 + 2 ( _ 2 2 & h h p x & 2 3
. . & h h p x &
* / + / ( _ 2 1 # p x # 2 3
. . # p x #
* , + , ( _ 2 0 h p x 2 3
. . p x
h * ) + ) ( _ 1 9 p p x 2 3
. . p p x
* & + & ( _ 1 8 x 2 3
. . x
* A A ( _ 1 7 5 +
` h p x 5 2 3
Ԁ5 +
` h p x 5
Ӳ4 * G G ( _ 1 6 / % ` ` h p x / 2 3
Ԁ/ % ` ` h p x /
A * 8 8 ( _ 1 5 , "
h p x , 2 3
Ԁ, "
h p x ,
* 5 5 ( _ 1 4 ` ) h p x ) 2 3
Ԁ) h p x )
` H U d * 2 2 ( _ 1 3 & h h p x & 2 3
Ԁ& h h p x &
* / / ( _ 1 2 # p x # 2 3
Ԁ# p x #
* , , ( _ 1 1 h p x 2 3
Ԁ p x
h * ) ) ( _ 1 0 p p x 2 3
Ԁ p p x
( & & & _ 9 x 2 3
Ԁ x
( A A & _ 8 5 +
` h p x 5 2 3
5 +
` h p x 5
( G G & _ 7 / % ` ` h p x / 2 3
/ % ` ` h p x /
( 8 8 & _ 6 , "
h p x , 2 3
, "
h p x ,
( 5 5 & _ 5 ` ) h p x ) 2 3
) h p x )
` ( 2 2 & _ 4 & h h p x & 2 3
& h h p x &
( / / & _ 3 # p x # 2 3
# p x #
1 ( , , & _ 2 h p x 2 3
p x
h ( ) ) & _ 1 p p x 2 3
p p x
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 & & & $ _ x 2 3
x
0 A A . N o r m a l 5 +
` h p x 5 5 +
` h p x 5 1 0 < A A : D e f i n i t i o n T 5 +
` h p x 5 5 +
` h p x 5 < A A : D e f i n i t i o n L , 5 +
` h p x 5 5 +
` h p x 5 8 6 D e f i n i t i o n ( h h & H 1 5 +
` h p x 5 5 +
` h p x 5 ( ] ] & H 2 5 +
` h p x 5 5 +
` h p x 5 ( ] ] & H 3 5 +
` h p x 5 5 +
` h p x 5 ( ] ] & H 4 5 +
` h p x 5 X XX 5 +
` h p x 5 ( ] ] & H 5 5 +
` h p x 5 5 +
` h p x 5 ( ] ] & H 6 5 +
` h p x 5 5 +
` h p x 5 2 D D 0 A d d r e s s 5 +
` h p x 5 5 +
` h p x 5 8 M M 6 B l o c k q u o t e ,
, 5 +
` h p x 5
5 +
` h p x 5 , * C I T E , d l * C O D E K ^ < 6X 9 ` ( C o u r i e r N e w K S _ \ ` & T i m e s N e w R o m a n S 4 2 E m p h a s i s 6 4 H y p e r l i n k
< : F o l l o w e d H y p e
4 g o 2 K e y b o a r d K ^ < 6X 9 ` ( C o u r i e r N e w K S _ \ ` & T i m e s N e w R o m a n S < : P r e f o r m a t t e d / %
, K k %#/ K ^ < 6X 9 ` ( C o u r i e r N e w K S _ \ ` & T i m e s N e w R o m a n S / %
, K k %#/
< : z B o t t o m o f 7 O ( X 7 5 +
` h p x 5 ? a % 2 A ` A r i a l ? S _ \ ` & T i m e s N e w R o m a n S 7 P ( X 7 5 +
` h p x 5 ` ) 1 d x d ' d x d < : z T o p o f F o r 7 R ( X 7 5 +
` h p x 5 ? a % 2 A ` A r i a l ? S _ \ ` & T i m e s N e w R o m a n S 7 P ( X 7 5 +
` h p x 5 ` ) 2 d x d 0 K S . S a m p l e K ^ < 6X 9 ` ( C o u r i e r N e w K S _ \ ` & T i m e s N e w R o m a n S 0 . S t r o n g 8 d l 6 T y p e w r i t e r K ^ < 6X 9 ` ( C o u r i e r N e w K S _ \ ` & T i m e s N e w R o m a n S 4 2 V a r i a b l e :
8 H T M L M a r k u p B
2
0 C o m m e n t B
# $ % & 3 5 ; A G M S Y _ 1 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 3# 3 7 = C I Q Y a g 1 . a . i . ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) 1 ) a ) Z i ) ( . ( 3>o$
k%! # n x d d
0
( #$ 0
< 6X 9 ` ( C o u r i e r N e w \ ` & T i m e s N e w R o m a n & 0 d d % 2 A ` A r i a l
( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r
e
e
e ( 9 Z ( T i m e s N e w R o m a n
\ >o$ # n x d d
1
_ D GraceUnitedcitesthefollowingprovisionsfromSection41.113ofthe CityofCheyenne szoningcodeassupportforthepropositionthattheCity
allows casebycaseexceptions : 8 ThefollowingusesmaybepermittedbytheBoard. 8 ... 8 (b)Churches 8 ... 8 (f)Primaryandsecondaryschools 8 (g)Otherusessimilartothosepermittedinthisdistrict....
Aplt.Br.at2728.# D De # XbX X D
e
{
\ >o$ # n x d d
3
_ c D c D c D EvenassumingtheChurchcouldestablishalikelihoodofsuccessonany ofitsconstitutionalclaims,theCitywouldbeentitledtoqualifiedimmunityon anyhybridrightsclaim.Thisissobecauseeven ifaviolationcouldbemadeout onafavorableviewoftheparties submissions,thenext,sequentialstepistoask whethertherightwasclearlyestablished. Saucierv.Katz,533U.S.194,201 (2001).# D c De # c D D # c D c D # c D c D Therelevant,dispositiveinquiryindeterminingwhetherarightis clearlyestablishediswhetheritwouldbecleartoareasonableofficer[inthe
defendant sposition]thathisconductwasunlawfulinthesituationhe confronted. Id.at202.InAxsonFlynn,weexpresslyheldthatthehybridrights x
exceptiontoSmith srationalbasisreviewwasnotclearlyestablishedpriortothe q
AxsonFlynndecisionin2004.AxsonFlynnv.Johnson,356F.3d1277,1301 j
(10thCir.2004).Anydefendant,therefore,whosechallengedactionsoccurred c
priortoissuanceofthatopinionwasentitledtoqualifiedimmunity.Id.Thus, \
regardlessofwhetherGraceUnitedhasafairprobabilityorlikelihoodofsuccess U
onanyofitsindependentconstitutionalclaims,theCityisentitledtoqualified N
immunityontheChurch shybridrightsclaimbecausetheparametersofthe G doctrinewerenotclearlyestablishedatthetimeoftheCity sactionsatissuein @ thislitigation.# D c D # # D D #
\ >o$ # n x d d
2
_ See D ChurchoftheLukumiBabaluAye,Inc.v.CityofHialeah,508U.S. 520,567(1993)(Souter,J.,concurring)( AndthedistinctionSmithdrawsstrikes measultimatelyuntenable.Ifahybridclaimissimplyoneinwhichanother constitutionalrightisimplicated,thenthehybridexceptionwouldprobablybeso vastastoswallowtheSmithrule,and,indeed,thehybridexceptionwouldcover thesituationexemplifiedbySmith,sincefreespeechandassociationalrightsare certainlyimplicatedinthepeyoteritual.Butifahybridclaimisoneinwhicha
litigantwouldactuallyobtainanexemptionfromaformallyneutral,generally applicablelawunderanotherconstitutionalprovision,thentherewouldhavebeen x
noreasonfortheCourtinwhatSmithcallsthehybridcasestohavementionedthe q
FreeExerciseClauseatall. ).# D Dr # XbX X D
\ >o$ # n x d d
4
_ @m JuryInstruction19readasfollows: e 8
` Agovernmentregulation substantiallyburdens theexercise ^ ofreligioniftheregulation:(1)significantlyinhibitsorconstrains W conductorexpressionthatmanifestssometenetoftheinstitutions P belief;(2)meaningfullycurtailsaninstitution sabilitytoexpress I adherencetoitsfaith;or(3)deniesaninstitutionreasonable B opportunitiestoengageinthoseactivitiesthatarefundamentaltothe ;
institution sreligion. 4 8
` Thus,foraburdenonreligiontobe substantial, the - governmentregulationmustcompelactionorinactionwithrespectto &
thesincerelyheldbelief;mereinconveniencetothereligious
institutionisinsufficient.
Aple.Supp.App.at83(emphasisadded).# @m @me # X% X @m Ԃ L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5
,
\ >o$ # n x d d
6
_ e 9 % , XX 4, hX x , (#X X9 8
@m (b)Discriminationandexclusion. 8 8 4 (1)Equalterms.Nogovernmentshallimposeorimplementa landuseregulationinamannerthattreatsareligiousassembly orinstitutiononlessthanequaltermswithanonreligious assemblyorinstitution. y 4 4 8 8 4 (2)Nondiscrimination.Nogovernmentshallimposeor r implementalanduseregulationthatdiscriminatesagainstany
k assemblyorinstitutiononthebasisofreligionorreligious d denomination.
] 4 4 8 8 4 (3)Exclusionsandlimits.Nogovernmentshallimposeor
V
implementalanduseregulationthat-- O
4 4 8
8 4 8 ` 4 4 (A)totallyexcludesreligiousassembliesfroma H jurisdiction;or A
` x ` x 8 8 4 8 ` 4 4 (B)unreasonablylimitsreligiousassemblies, :
institutions,orstructureswithinajurisdiction. 3 ` x ` x Id.2000cc(b).# @m @m # X% X @m
\ >o$ # n x d d
7
_ - , XX 4 ` X X- @m Instruction17readasfollows: e 0
8 4(#(# Theterm religiousexercise asusedintheReligiousLandUseand ^ InstitutionalizedPersonsActincludesanyexerciseofreligion, W whetherornotcompelledby,orcentralto,asystemofreligious P belief.Theuse,building,orconversionofrealpropertyforthe I purposeofreligiousexerciseshallbeconsideredtobereligious B exerciseofthepersonorentitythatusesorintendstousethe ;
propertyforthatpurpose.
4 4!4! Aple.Supp.App.at81(emphasisadded).# @m @m # X% X @m
\ >o$ # n x d d
8
_ @m Instruction18readasfollows: e 6 "
XX 4 ` X L , (#X X6 0
8 4(#(# InordertoprovetheessentialelementsofPlaintiff sclaimunder ^ RLUIPA,theburdenisonPlaintifftoestablishbyapreponderance W oftheevidenceeachofthefollowing: P 4!4! 0 8 4(#(# 8 ` 4!4! First:TheCityofCheyenne slanduseregulation,ortheBoard I ofAdjustment sapplicationofthatlanduseregulation, B imposesasubstantialburdenonGraceUnitedMethodist ;
Church sexerciseofreligion; 4 ` ` 0
8 4(#(# 8 ` 4!4! Second:GraceUnitedMethodistChurch soperationofthe - childcareordaycarecenteris[a]sincereexerciseofreligion; &
and
` ` 0
8 4(#(# 8 ` 4!4! Third:GraceUnitedMethodistChurchisareligiousassembly
orinstitution.8 h` `
hh Id.at82.# @m @me # X% X @m
\ >o$ # n x d d
9
* , XX X X* _ @m Instruction20readasfollows: e 0
8 (#(# Areligiousbeliefis sincere ifitistrulyheldandreligiousin ^ nature. W !! Id.at84.# @m @m # X% X @m Ԅ L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5
<
\ >o$ # n x d d
12
_ @m PursuanttoRule701,awitnesswhoisnotanexpertmayofferopinion e testimonyonlywhenitis ^ 8
(a)rationallybasedontheperceptionofthewitness,(b)helpfultoa W clearunderstandingofthewitness testimonyorthedeterminationof P afactinissue,and(c)notbasedonscientific,technical,orother I specializedknowledgewithinthescopeofRule702. B # @m @mf # @m @m Thus,Rule701permitstheadmissionoflayopinion# @m @m # @m @m Ԁtestimonyprovidedthatit ;
meetstwocriteria:arationalbasisinperceptionandhelpfulness. The 4 perceptionrequirementstemsfrom_ F.R.E._ Ԁ602whichrequiresalaywitnessto -
havefirsthandknowledgeoftheeventsheistestifyingaboutsoastopresent
&
onlythemostaccurateinformationtothefinderoffact. UnitedStatesv. e Hoffner,777F.2d1423,1425(10thCir.1985). u
C
׀# @m @m # @m @m ^ # @m @m # X% X @m
\ >o$ # n x d d
1
_ Mr.BushalsoraisesaRule602concernduetolackofpersonal knowledge.SinceRule701includeswithinitthestandardforRule602,ourRule 701analysisresolvesthisissueaswell.See3CharlesAlanWrightand VictorJamesGold,FederalPractice&Procedure:Evidence6254( The requirementthatlayopinionbebasedontheperceptionofthewitnessimports intoRule701thepersonalknowledgestandardofRule602 ). L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5 L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5 " " " " ' d x d ( . 3Y$
k%! # n x d d
L
\ >o$ # n x d d
11
_ _ @m _ @m _ @m TheCitysubmitsthatthe# @m _ @mf # c @m @m courtdecidedtoadmittheBishop sletter e pursuanttoFederalRuleofEvidence804(b)(3).Aple.Br.at36.Thedistrict ^ courtadmittedtheletterasan admissionagainstinterest, withoutspecifically W articulatingwhichfederalruleitwasimplicating.Aplt.App.,vol.IIIat1118.
P
& Unavailabilityofthedeclarantisaprerequisitetotheexceptionfromthehearsay e ruleofanadmissionagainstinterest,Fed.R.Evid.804(a),andtheparties ^ stipulatedthatBishopBrownwasphysically unavailable toprovidelive W testimonyduringthejurytrial.Adeclarant,however,isconsideredavailablefor P purposesoftheexceptionunderRule804(b)(3)ifthedeclarant sdeposition I testimonycanbetakenforuseattrial.SeeFed.R.Evid.804(a)(5).Thus,a B deposeddeclarantsuchasBishopBrowncanneverbe unavailable forpurposes ;
ofanexceptionunderRule804(b)(3).# c @m c @m # c @m c @m Asaresult,weassumeherethatthe 4 districtcourtactuallyreliedonRule801(d)(2),whichdeemsanadmissionbya -
partyopponenttobenonhearsay.See,e.g.,BigAppleBMWofN.Am.,Inc.v. &
BMWofN.Am.,Inc.,974F.2d1358,1374(3dCir.1992)(notingRule801(d)(2)
isdesignatedasanadmissionagainstinterest );UnitedStatesv.Johnson,971
F.2d562,574(10thCir.1992)(referringtoRule801(d)(2)asan admission
againstinterest );seealsoDavidF.Binder,HearsayHandbook351,at35
6(4thed.2001)( Anadmissionofapartyopponentisnormallycontrarytothe
interestofthedeclarant,butthereisnorequirementthatthisbeso. );JosephM. McLaughlinetal,Weinstein sfederalevidence801.30[1],at80148(2d ed.2005)(partyadmissionsunderRule801(d)(2)may,butarenotrequiredtobe, againstinterest).Inanyevent,wemayaffirmthedistrictcourtonanybasis supportedbytherecord.Felixv.LucentTechs.,Inc.,387F.3d1146,1165(10th { Cir.2004). t # c @m c @m # c X% X c @m ~ z x C << C
\ >o$ # n x d d
13
_ Seeinfranote11. L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5 ( . 3Y$
k%! # n x d d
( $$ 1
) ! d x dx P P d
\ >o$ # n x d d
5
_ 9 % , XX 4, X x , (#X X9 @m Inrelevantpart,thisprovisionreadsasfollows: e 8
2000cc.Protectionoflanduseasreligiousexercise. ^ 8 4 (a)Substantialburdens. W 8 0 4 0 ` 4 4 (1)Generalrule.Nogovernmentshallimposeorimplementa P landuseregulationinamannerthatimposesasubstantial I burdenonthereligiousexerciseofaperson,includinga B religiousassemblyorinstitution,unlessthegovernment ;
demonstratesthatimpositionoftheburdenonthatperson, 4 assembly,orinstitution-- -
` ` 8 0 4 0 ` 4 4 0
` ` (A)isinfurtheranceofacompellinggovernmentalinterest; &
and
8
0 4 0 ` 4 4 0
` ` (B)istheleastrestrictivemeansoffurtheringthat
compellinggovernmentalinterest.
8
0 4 0 ` 4 4 (2)Scopeofapplication.Thissubsectionappliesinanycasein
which...
` ` 8 8 4 0 ` 4 4 8
` ` (C)thesubstantialburdenisimposedinthe implementationofalanduseregulationorsystemof landuseregulations,underwhichagovernment makes,orhasinplaceformalorinformal8 @ ` ` procedures orpracticesthatpermitthegovernmenttomake,
{
individualizedassessentsoftheproposedusesforthe e propertyinvolved. ^
x
x 42U.S.C.2000cc(a).# @m @m # X% X @m
=
z Y# # n x d d _
Y" # n x d d _
# d n x R Q # d d FILED# d d # D Q R^ # XbX X D # d d d UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals TenthCircuit } _ # D X XbX # D " US , June20,2006# D # XbX X D _ 11 _ _ _ ElisabethA._ Shumaker_ _ ## _ # D X XbX1 # D D ClerkofCourt# D DE # XbX X D _ _ _
\ >o$ # n x d d
10
_ Afterreadingthejuryinstructions,thecourtaddressedeachsectionofthe e specialverdictformforthejury.Significantly,thefirstquestionthejurywas ^ requiredtoanswerontheverdictformwaswhetherGraceUnitedhadproven by W apreponderanceoftheevidencethat[its]proposedoperationofthechildcareor P daycarecenterisasincereexerciseofreligion. Aplt.App.,vol.Vat2265.The I courtinstructedthejurythatiftheydeterminedtheanswertothisfirstquestion B wasno, thatwouldendthematterand[theyshould]justdateandsignthe ;
verdict. Id.Afterdeliberations,thejurydidjustthat.Id.at2275. V e n t o l a R o t h g e r b e r
L L P B a s o m S t u r g i l l K e i s l e r B R I S C O E D . W y o S e r v s L a w m a s t e r L u k u m i B a b a l u
A p l t e x e m p t i o n l e s s A x s o n A s s n r e z o n e I n d e p s c h o o l e r s $ d i s c r i m i n a t o r i l y S a n t e r i a n s S a n t e r i a c o n c l u s o r y T ] h e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g c o l o r a b l e D e p t
T r s S o u t e r
Z . J . L . L . C . C m t y G a s c o e N e w t o w n
S y s T h e a t r e s
A p l e D i r s I n t l B ] e f o r e
n ] o C l e b u r n e F r u i t L a n d s m ] u n i c i p a l L a n d s t a r L i g o n K n u d s e n N e d e r L u s b y a s s e s s e n t s R L U I P A T h i r y g r a v e s i t e
L y n g N w M c C o t t e r R F R A n o n p r i s o n e r T h i r y s K i k u m u r a R i c k a r d D a v e y
a ] n S a n j u a n
I B P e r r o r o n e o u s l i m i n e
E v i d d e c l a r a n t n o n h e a r s a y T e c h s s e r v e [ s l a y p e r s o n s H o f f n e r P i n a l t o
C S X D i D o m e n i c o S m e d r a S t a n e k a ] d m i s s i o n s M u r r e y F . R . D . D . D . C . H i c k m a n D a b n e y u n c o n t r o v e r t e d M i n s h a l l M c G r a w d i s p o s i t i v e A d v e r C o m m n B o m m e r B a n t e l M c G r a t h i n t e r v e n o r s
L . J . M i c h a e l s H . R . R e p U . S . C . C . A . N . S . C t L . E d n o n d i v e r s e
i ] n W m i n t e r v e n o r S c h i p p o r e i t M o o s e h e a d M o u n t v i e w E d g c o m b
H e i n M o u n t a i n v i e w
j
\ >o$ # n x d d
14
_ UnderRule24(a)(2), e * , XX 4 ` X X* 0
8 4(#(# [_ u]pon_ Ԁtimelyapplicationanyoneshallbepermittedtointervenein ^ anaction...whentheapplicantclaimsaninterestrelatingtothe W propertyortransactionwhichisthesubjectoftheactionandthe P applicantissosituatedthatthedispositionoftheactionmayasa I practicalmatterimpairorimpedetheapplicant sabilitytoprotect B thatinterest,unlesstheapplicant sinterestisadequatelyrepresented ;
byexistingparties. 4 4!4! Fed.R.Civ.P.24(a)(2).
'
\ >o$ # n x d d
15
_ Ontheotherhand,thestatutesetlimitsonsupplementaljurisdictionwhen e thedistrictcourt ssubjectmatterjurisdictionisbasedondiversity.28U.S.C.
^
1367(b).See c @m c @m c @m JamesWm.Mooreetal.,6Moore sFederalPractice24.22 e [2],at2482(3ded.2005);seegenerallyKarenNelsonMoore,TheSupplemental ^ JurisdictionStatute:AnImportantbutControversialSupplementtoFederal W Jurisdiction,41EmoryL.J.31(1992).# @m c @mP # # @m @mo #
\ >o$ # n x d d
16
_ Ourdecisionin_ Bantel_ Ԁv._ McGrath_ ,215F.2d297(10thCir.1954),is e distinguishableasholdingthatinterventionitselfwasinappropriate.Itwasnotat ^ allconcernedwithwhethersupplementaljurisdictionexistedoverapendentclaim W onceinterventionwasgranted.- -
C
\ >o$ # n x d d
17
_ ParagraphGofthecovenantsstatesthatachurchmaybebuiltonblock e 12,butifitisnot,thentheblockshallbedividedintoeightlots.SeeAplt.App., ^ vol.IIat591.
k%! # n x d d _ D D D
8 D d d 8
%
, , H _ | I 9 5 z | u p
@ E
_ , , H
PUBLISH UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS T TENTHCIRCUIT .~ A "
) d E
A
*
" d d d X d d X d d X (#(# , <d d , <d d +
%
4
GRACEUNITEDMETHODIST 7 CHURCH% 4 ,
0
l Plaintiff%
5
ԄAppellant% 5 V , " v.
%
6
CITYOFCHEYENNE;CITYOF CHEYENNEBOARDOF ADJUSTMENT;DOROTHY WILSON,CityofCheyenne DevelopmentDirector;CHEYENNE CITYCOUNCIL% 6 , l Defendant%
7
ԄAppellees, % 7 MOUNTVIEWPARK w HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, p l Defendant_ Intervenor_ ԄAppellee, b ̄ T! UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, F# l Plaintiff_ Intervenor_ ԄIntervenor, 8% " THEBECKETFUNDFOR *'z"$ RELIGIOUSLIBERTY, #(s#% l AmicusCuriae.
0 & *e%'
0 No.%
.
038060% . M 1 ' %
- "
1 >+&- " A "
) d E
A
D D @ * # D D # D D @ EE OPINIONONREHEARING A "
) d
E
A # D Dp #
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt forthe%
2
% 2
Districtof%
3
Wyoming% 3
(D.C.No.%
1
02CV35B% 1 )
A "
) d
E
A
SamuelMartinVentola,ofRothgerberJohnson&LyonsLLP,Denver,Colorado,
forthePlaintiff/Appellant.
StephenH.Kline,ofKlineLawOffice,Cheyenne,Wyoming(MichaelD.Basom,
AttorneyforCityofCheyenne,Cheyenne,Wyoming,onthebrief),forthe {
Defendants/Appellees. t LowellV.Sturgill,Jr.,AppellateStaff,CivilDivision,DepartmentofJustice, f Washington,D.C.(PeterD.Keisler,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,MatthewH. _ Mead,UnitedStatesAttorney,andMarkStern,AppellateStaff,CivilDivision, X DepartmentofJustice,Washington,D.C.,withhimonthebrief),forthePlaintiff Q Intervenor,UnitedStatesofAmerica. J RomanP._ Storzer_ ,Anthony_ Picarello_ ԀJr.,andDerekL._ Gaubatz_ ,filedabrieffor < AmicusCuriae,TheBecketFundforReligiousLiberty. 5 A "
) d E
A p Before
BRISCOE , %
8
HOLLOWAY,% 8 and %
;
SEYMOUR% ; ,CircuitJudges. ( x A "
) d E
" A "j "
SEYMOUR ,CircuitJudge. "#r $ A "
) d E
% A %d & #%s '
b Oa 8 c bXc X X d d 8 d OY e O f O g W! j O7 GraceUnitedMethodistChurch(GraceUnitedorChurch),anonprofit religiouscorporationaffiliatedwiththeUnitedMethodistChurch,filedacivil actionpursuantto D D theReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsAct (RLUIPA),42U.S.C.2000ccetseq.,# D D # Ԁand42U.S.C.1983againsttheCityof
Cheyenne,Wyomingandotheraffiliateddefendants(hereinaftercollectivelythe x
City).GraceUnitedallegedthatdefendants actionsindenyingitalicenseto j
operateadaycareinaresidentialzoneviolated(1)RLUIPAbyimposinga \
substantialburdenontheChurch sexerciseofreligion;(2)theFirstAmendment N
bydeprivingtheChurchofitsrighttofreeexerciseofreligionandfreedomof @ speech,assembly,andassociation;and(3)theFourteenthAmendment sdue 2 processandequalprotectionclausesbydenyingtheChurchuseofitsproperty. $t c D D MountviewParkHomeowners Association,anonprofitcorporationorganizedby f andconsistingofhomeownerswithintheMountainParkAdditionofCheyenne, X Wyoming,intervenedintheactionasamatterofright.SeeFed.R.Civ.P. J 24(a)(2).Mountviewsoughtadeclarationthattheproposeddaycarecenterwould < violateneighborhoodrestrictivecovenants. !. ThedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttodefendantsontheChurch s # constitutionalclaims,GraceUnitedMethodistChurchv.CityofCheyenne,235F. %!" Supp.2d1186,1201-02(D.Wyo.2002),andajuryfoundagainsttheChurch '#$ underRLUIPAandtherestrictivecovenants.Asaresultofthejury s )$& determinations,thedistrictcourtissuedaposttrialjudgmentenjoiningthe +&( Churchfrombuildingandoperatingthedaycarecenter. Weinitiallyaffirmedthedistrictcourt ssummaryjudgmentrulings,aswell asitsassociatedtrialrulingsandthejuryverdictontheRLUIPAclaim.Grace UnitedMethodistChurchv.CityofCheyenne,427F.3d775(10thCir.2005).We
helditunnecessarytoaddressGraceUnited sadditionalcontentionsthat x
Mountviewhadnostandingtointervene,thatthedistrictcourthadnojurisdiction j
overtherestrictivecovenantclaims,andthatinanyeventthepropertyonwhich \
theChurchsitsisnotgovernedbythecovenants.# D c DL # D D Id.at804.Uponconsideration N
ofGraceUnited spetitionforrehearingandpetitionforrehearingenbanc, @ however,wemakeminorchangestotheoriginalopinionandgrantpanel 2 rehearingtoaddresstheissuesregardingMountview sinterventionandthe $t restrictivecovenants.Ourpreviousopinion,seeGraceUnitedMethodistChurch, f 427F.3d775,isvacated,andthisrevisedopinionisissuedinitsstead. X # D DI # @ * @ @ * @ @ * I < GraceUnitedistheownerofrealpropertyinalowdensityresidential(LR !. 1)zoneinCheyenne,Wyoming.ThepropertywasdeededtoGraceUnitedin # 1956subjecttoneighborhoodcovenants,andhasbeenoperatedasaMethodist %!" churchsincethattime.InMarch2001,GraceUnitedsoughtalicensefromthe '#$ CityofCheyennetooperatea100childdaycarecenterintheLR1zone.The )$& proposedfacilitywouldprovidecareforchildrennewlyborntoagethirteen, +&( b Oa
b
b
wouldbeopentothepublicregardlessofreligiousaffiliation,andwouldoperate eighteenhoursaday!from6:00a.m.untilmidnight!sevendaysaweek. BecausetheapplicableCheyennezoningordinanceprohibitedanyentityfrom operatingadaycarewithmorethantwelvechildreninanLR1zone,theCity s
DevelopmentDirector,DorothyWilson,deniedthelicence. x
GraceUnitedappealedthatdecisionbyfilinganapplicationforavariance j
fromtheLR1zoningrestrictions.Thematterwassetforapublichearingin \
frontoftheCity sBoardofAdjustment,thebodyauthorizedtohearappealsfrom N
adversezoningdecisions.Atthehearing,GraceUnitedwasrepresentedby @ counselandwaspermittedtopresentwitnessesandevidence.TheChurch s 2 witnessestestifiedthattheproposeddaycarewouldchargeafeeforitsservices $t commensuratewithfeeschargedbyotherdaycarefacilitiesinCheyenne,and f wouldhirecaregiversandinstructorswhowerenotmembersoftheChurchand X whomayormaynothaveanyreligioustraining.Subsequenttothehearing,the J BoardofAdjustmentunanimouslydeniedthevarianceonthefollowingbases:(1) < theproposeddaycarecenterwasnotachurch,primaryorsecondaryschool,or !. anyothersimilarusepermittedwithintheLR1zone,asdefinedbytheCheyenne # LaramieCountyZoningOrdinance,andtheBoardthereforehadnoauthorityor %!" discretiontograntthevariance;(2)theChurchfailedtodemonstratethatthe '#$ proposedusewasinconformancewithallotherapplicablepoliciesadoptedbythe )$& CityorLaramieCounty;and(3)theproposedusewasincompatiblewiththe +&( neighborhoodandwouldharmcommunitygoals. GraceUnitedfiledthisactionagainsttheCityofCheyenne,theBoardof Adjustment,DorothyWilson,inherofficialcapacityasDevelopmentDirectorfor theCityofCheyenne,andtheCityCouncil,allegingthattheBoard sdecisionto
denythevarianceviolatedRLUIPA,andtheFirstandFourteenthAmendments. x
TheCityfiledamotiontodismiss,whichthedistrictcourtconvertedintoa j
motionforsummaryjudgment.GraceUnitedrespondedbyfilingamotionfor \
partialsummaryjudgmentonitsRLUIPAclaim.ThecourtgrantedtheCity s N
motioninpartanddismissedalloftheChurch sconstitutionalclaims,butit @ determinedtherewassufficientevidencetoallowtheRLUIPAclaimtogoto 2 trial.Subsequenttothedistrictcourt srulingonthesummaryjudgmentmotions, $t Mountviewintervenedtopreventaviolationofthecovenantsofthe f neighborhood. X TheRLUIPAandcovenantissuesproceededtojurytrial.Thejuryfound J thatGraceUnitedhadfailedtoprovetheproposedoperationofthedaycarecenter < wasasincereexerciseofreligionunderRLUIPA,andconcludedthatthedaycare !. centerwouldbeinviolationofthecovenantsoftheneighborhood.Asaresult, # thedistrictcourtpermanentlyenjoinedGraceUnitedfromusingitspropertyasa %!" daycarecenterinviolationofCheyenne slanduseregulationsandWyoming s '#$ licensingrequirements.Insodoing,thecourtdeterminedthatthezoning )$& ordinancewasenactedpursuanttoacompellinggovernmentalinterestandwas +&( accomplishedbytheleastrestrictivemeans.Thisappealfollowed. @ ) II @ V
V
DismissalofGraceUnited sConstitutionalClaims
GraceUnitedcontendsthedistrictcourterredbydismissingits x constitutionalclaims.Aspreviouslynoted,theChurchbroughtclaimsforrelief j
pursuantto1983allegingthattheCity,actingunderthecolorofstatelaw, \
depriveditofitsconstitutionalrightstothefreeexerciseofreligionandfreedom N
ofspeech,assembly,andassociationinviolationoftheFirstAmendment,anddue @ processandequalprotectioninviolationoftheFourteenthAmendment.The 2 districtcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttotheCityoneachoftheseclaims. $t h D D Wereviewdenovothedistrictcourt sgrantofsummaryjudgment.Keys f YouthServs.,Inc.v.CityofOlathe,248F.3d1267,1270(10thCir.2001). X Summaryjudgmentshouldbegrantediftheevidencesubmittedshows thatthere J isnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledto < judgmentasamatteroflaw. Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c). Whenapplyingthis !. standard,weviewtheevidenceanddrawreasonableinferencestherefrominthe # lightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty. KeysYouthServs.,248F.3dat %!" 1270# D h DP7 # h D D (quotationomitted).Amerescintillaofevidenceinsupportofthe '#$ nonmovingparty sposition,however,isinsufficienttocreateagenuineissueof )$& materialfact.Lawmasterv.Ward,125F.3d1341,1347(10thCir.1997). +&( Ї# D h Dk: # c D D FreeExerciseofReligion GraceUnitedmaintainsthattheCity sactionindenyingtheChurcha zoningvariancepreventsitfromengaginginreligiousinstructiononitsproperty. RelyingonEmploymentDiv.v.Smith,494U.S.872(1990),thedistrictcourtheld
thattheCity slanduseregulationsareneutralrulesofgeneralapplicabilitywhich x
donotsubstantiallyburdentheChurch sexerciseofreligion.Onappeal,Grace j
UnitedcontendstheCity szoningordinancesarenotneutrallawsofgeneral \
applicabilitybecausetheyallow casebycase exceptions.Italsoarguesthat N
evenifthelanduseregulationsatissueareneutrallawsofgeneralapplicability, @ the hybridrights exceptiontoSmithappliesandrequiresthattheCity szoning 2 regulationssatisfyheightenedscrutiny.Weaddresseachoftheseargumentsin $t turn. f WhiletheFirstAmendmentprovidesabsoluteprotectiontoreligious X thoughtsandbeliefs,thefreeexerciseclausedoesnotprohibitCongressandlocal J governmentsfromvalidlyregulatingreligiousconduct.Reynoldsv.United < States,98U.S.145,164(1878).Neutralrulesofgeneralapplicabilitynormally !. donotraisefreeexerciseconcernseveniftheyincidentallyburdenaparticular # religiouspracticeorbelief.Smith,494U.S.at879(freeexerciseclause doesnot %!" relieveanindividualoftheobligationtocomplywithavalidandneutrallawof '#$ generalapplicabilityonthegroundthatthelawproscribes(orprescribes)conduct )$& thathisreligionprescribes(orproscribes) (internalquotationomitted)).Thus,a +&( lawthatisbothneutralandgenerallyapplicableneedonlyberationallyrelatedto alegitimategovernmentalinteresttosurviveaconstitutionalchallenge.United Statesv.Hardman,297F.3d1116,1126(10thCir.2002).Ontheotherhand,ifa lawthatburdensareligiouspracticeisnotneutralorgenerallyapplicable,itis
subjecttostrictscrutiny,andtheburdenonreligiousconductviolatestheFree x
ExerciseClauseunlessitisnarrowlytailoredtoadvanceacompelling j
governmentalinterest.ChurchoftheLukumiBabaluAye,Inc.v.CityofHialeah, \
508U.S.520,546(1993).Therefore,ourfirststepinanalyzingGraceUnited s N
freeexerciseclaimistodeterminewhichlevelofscrutinytoapply. @ @ NeutralandGenerallyApplicableLaws $t Alawisneutralsolongasitsobjectissomethingotherthanthe f infringementorrestrictionofreligiouspractices.Id.at533(a lawlacksfacial X neutralityifitreferstoareligiouspracticewithoutasecularmeaningdiscernable J fromthelanguageorcontext ).Intheinstantcase,thereisnodisputethatthe < zoningordinanceatissueisneutralonitsface.Instead,thepartiesdisagree !. regardingwhethertheregulationis generallyapplicable. # AccordingtotheChurch,theordinanceisdiscriminatorilyappliedbecause %!" theregulationpermitsexceptionsonacasebycasebasis. i
] # 1
׀Asaresult,the '#$ d OY
d
d
Churchargues,thedenialoftherequestedvarianceshould undergothemost rigorousofscrutiny beforetheburdeningofreligiouspracticecanbejustified. Aplt.Br.at22(quotingCityofHialeah,508U.S.at546).TheCitycountersthat GraceUnitedsubmittednoevidencesuggestingtheordinancewasenacteddueto
religiousanimusorwasselectivelyordiscriminatorilyapplied.Moreover,it x
claimsthatitneverengagedin apatternofadhocdiscretionarydecisions j
amountingtoasystem ofindividualassessments. Aple.Br.at16(quoting \
AxsonFlynnv.Johnson,356F.3d1277,1299(10thCir.2004)).Accordingtothe N
City,thezoningordinancesimplydoesnotpermitanyone,religiouslymotivated @ orotherwise,tooperateadaycarecenterinanLR1zonedarea. 2 InSmith,theSupremeCourtnotedthat wheretheStatehasinplacea $t systemofindividualexemptions,itmaynotrefusetoextendthatsystemtocases f of religioushardship withoutcompellingreason. 494U.S.at884(quoting X Bowenv.Roy,476U.S.693,708(1986)).Wetreatthislanguageasthe J individualizedexemption exceptiontoSmith sruleregardingneutraland < generallyapplicablelaws.SeeAxsonFlynn,356F.3dat129495.Basedon !. SmithandCityofHialeah,theindividualizedexemptionexceptioninquirycanbe summarizedasfollows:aslongasalawremainsexemptionless,itisconsidered generallyapplicableandreligiousgroupscannotclaimarighttoexemption; however,whenalawhassecularexemptions,achallengebyareligiousgroup
becomespossible.SeeCityofHialeah,508U.S.at537;Smith,494U.S.at884. x
The[Supreme]Courthasneverexplainedwithspecificitywhatconstitutes j
a system ofindividualizedexceptions. AxsonFlynn,356F.3dat1297.The \
classicexampleofsuchasystemistheunemploymentcompensationbenefits N
regimechallengedbyaSeventhDayAdventistinSherbertv.Verner,374U.S. @ 398(1963),thesourceofSmith sindividualizedassessmentscarveout.See 2 Smith,494U.S.at884.Sherbertinvolvedaplaintiffwhorefusedtowork $t Saturdaysduetoherreligiousbeliefsandwasdeniedunemploymentbenefits# D c D; # c D D Ԁby f governmentemployeeswhowereaffordedconsiderablediscretioninassessing X applicants eligibilityforbenefits.SeeSherbert,374U.S.at399402;seealso J Smith,494U.S.at884( theSherberttest...wasdevelopedinacontextthatlent < itselftoindividualizedgovernmentalassessmentofthereasonsfortherelevant !. conduct ).Toensurethatindividualsdonotsufferunfairtreatmentonthebasis # ofreligiousanimus,subjectiveassessmentsystemsthat inviteconsiderationof %!" theparticularcircumstances behindanapplicant sactions,suchasthe '#$ governmentbenefitsregimeinSherbert,triggerstrictscrutiny.Smith,494U.S.at )$& 884(quotationomitted). c XbX X c D +&( # c D Xc XbXZ # GraceUnitedseemstobeaskingustoadoptaperserulerequiringthatany landuseregulationwhichpermitsanysecularexceptionsatisfyastrictscrutiny testtosurviveafreeexercisechallenge.Consistentwiththemajorityofour sistercircuits,however,wehavealreadyrefusedtointerpretSmithasstandingfor
thepropositionthatasecularexemptionautomaticallycreatesaclaimfora x
religiousexemption.SeeAxsonFlynn,356F.3dat1297(asystemof j
individualizedexemptions isoneinwhichcasebycaseinquiriesareroutinely \
made,suchthatthereisan individualizedgovernmentalassessmentofthe N
reasonsfortherelevantconduct that invite[s]considerationsoftheparticular @ circumstances involvedintheparticularcase (quotingSmith,494U.S.at884) 2 (emphasesadded)).Asthedistrictcourtcorrectlyobserved,several federal $t courtshaveheldthatlanduseregulations,i.e.,zoningordinances,areneutraland f generallyapplicablenotwithstandingthattheymayhaveindividualized X proceduresforobtainingspecialusepermitsorvariances. GraceUnited J MethodistChurch,235F.Supp.2dat1200(citingcases).Indeed,inthelanduse < context,theSixth,Seventh,Eighth,andEleventhCircuitshaverejectedaperse !. approachandinsteadapplyafactspecificinquirytodeterminewhetherthe # regulationatissuewasmotivatedbydiscriminatoryanimus,orwhetherthefacts %!" supportanargumentthatthechallengedruleisappliedinadiscriminatory '#$ fashionthatdisadvantagesreligiousgroupsororganizations.See,e.g.,Civil )$& LibertiesForUrbanBelieversv.CityofChicago,342F.3d752,7645(7thCir. +&( 2003)(ordinancepermittingchurchesinallresidentialareasbutrequiringspecial useapprovaltooperatechurchesincommercialandbusinessareasandlimiting churchoperationinmanufacturingareasheldneutrallawsofgeneral applicability);FirstAssemblyofGodofNaplesv.CollierCounty,20F.3d419,
42324(11thCir.1994)(city sordinanceprohibitinghomelesssheltersincertain x
areasheldneutralandofgeneralapplicabilitybecausemotivatedbyhealthand j
safetyconcerns,_ applied_ Ԁtobothchurchandseculargrouphomesanddidnot \
completelyprohibitoperationofhomelessshelters);CornerstoneBibleChurchv. N
CityofHastings,948F.2d464,472(8thCir.1991)(zoningordinanceexcluding @ churchesandothernonprofitsfrom c XbX X c D Ԁ# c D Xc XbXsg # city scentralbusinessdistricthadnoimpact 2 onreligiousbeliefandwasgenerallawapplyingtoalllanduseincity). $t Accordingtothesecourts,althoughzoninglawsmaypermitsomeindividualized f assessmentforvariances,theyaregenerallyapplicableiftheyaremotivatedby X secularpurposesandimpactequallyalllandownersinthecityseekingvariances. J See,e.g.,FirstAssemblyofGodofNaples,20F.3dat42324. x < AlthoughwehavenothadoccasionsinceSmithandCityofHialeahwere !. decidedtospecificallyaddresswhetherzoninglawswithsomeindividualized # proceduresforobtainingvariancesareneverthelessgenerallyapplicable,circuit %!" precedentisinstructiveandguidesouranalysis.Initsassessmentofthegeneral '#$ applicabilityofCheyenne szoningordinance,thedistrictcourtspecificallyrelied )$& onSwansonv.GuthrieIndep.Sch.Dist.No.IL,135F.3d694(10thCir.1998). +&( InSwanson,aChristianhomeschooledstudentandherparentsbroughtsuit againstthelocalschooldistrictanditsofficials,allegingthatthedistrict srefusal toallowthestudenttoattendclassespart-timeviolatedherrightsunderthefree exerciseclause.Id.at69697.Weconcludedthattheschooldistrict spolicy
againstparttimeattendancewasaneutrallawofgeneralapplicability: x
8 Onitsface,thepolicyenactedbytheschoolboardinthiscaseis j
neutralandofgeneralapplication!itappliestoallpersonswho c
mightwishtoattendpublicschoolonapart-timebasis,andprohibits \
suchpart-timeattendance(withcertainspecificexceptions,suchas U
fifth-yearseniorsandspecial-educationstudents).Itappliesto N
studentswhoarehomeschooledforsecularreasonsaswellasthose G home-schooledforreligiousreasons,anditappliestostudents @ attendingprivateschoolswhetherornotthoseprivateschoolsare 9 religiousorsecularinorientation. 2 Id.at698(emphasisadded).Wealsoheldthattheschooldistrict sparttime $t attendancepolicydidnotconstituteasuspectsystemofindividualized f exceptions: X 8 Theschoolboard spolicyinthiscasedoesnotestablishasystemof J individualizedexceptionsthatgiverisetotheapplicationofa C subjectivetest.Instead,theonlyrecognizedexceptionstothe < full-time-attendancerequirementarestrictcategoriesofstudents,all 5 ofwhomhaveonecharacteristicincommon!thestateofOklahoma !. recognizesthemasstudentsforpurposesofcalculatingtheamountof "' financialaidtoprovidetotheschooldistrict.Plaintiffs,andallother # home-schoolers(religiousorsecular)whodonotmeetthat $ ! requirement,areineligiblefortheexception.Aswediscussedabove, %!" thereisnoevidencethattheexceptionisinanywaybasedon & "# religiouscategorizationordiscrimination. '#$ Id.at701(emphasesadded). )$& ThedistrictcourtalsoreliedonMessiahBaptistChurchv.Countyof +&( Jefferson,859F.2d820(10thCir.1988).Inthatcase,weconsideredafree exercisechallengetoacounty sdenialofapermitwhichwouldhaveallowedthe MessiahBaptistChurchtobuildachurchinanagricultural(A2)zone.Id.at 82123.InholdingthatthedenialofthepermitdidnotviolatetheChurch sright
tofreeexercise,wesaid: x
8 therecordinourcasedisclosesnoevidencethattheconstructionofa j
houseofworshiponthepropertyintheA-2zoningdistrictis c
integrallyrelatedtounderlyingreligiousbeliefsoftheChurch.... \
Whatisimportantisthattherecordcontainsnoevidencethat U
buildingachurchorbuildingachurchontheparticularsiteis N
intimatelyrelatedtothereligioustenetsofthechurch.Atmost,the G recorddisclosestheChurch spreferenceistoconstructitshouseof @ worshipuponitsland. 9 Id.at82425(emphasisadded).Weconcludedwiththeunequivocaldeclaration +{ that [a]churchhasnoconstitutionalrighttobefreefromreasonablezoning m regulationsnordoesachurchhaveaconstitutionalrighttobuilditshouseof _ worshipwhereitpleases. Id.at826.Itwasofnoconsequencethatthezoning Q regulationsatissuehadtheincidentaleffectofmakingthechurch sexerciseof C religionmoreexpensivebecauseitwascompelledtobuildelsewhereinthe 5 county.Id.at825. "' Inacaseparticularlyappositetoouranalysishere,weheldthata rulethat $ ! isdiscriminatorilymotivatedandappliedisnotaneutralruleofgeneral & "# applicability. AxsonFlynn,356F.3dat1294.InAxsonFlynn,aMormon (#% studentenrolledinastateuniversity sactortrainingprogrambroughta1983 *%' suitallegingthatherfreespeechandfreeexerciserightswereviolatedwhenshe wasrequiredtouttercertainoffensivewordswhileperformingascript,# D c D1W # c D D Ԁindirect contraventiontoherreligiousbeliefs.Id.at128081.Wereversedthedistrict court ssummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheuniversity,holdingtherewasagenuine
issueofmaterialfactastowhetherthescriptadherencerequirementviolatedthe x
student sfreeexerciserights.Id.at1299.Importantly,theplaintiffproffered j
evidencethatthescriptadherencerulewasappliedtoherdueto antiMormon \
sentiment.Id.at129899.Forinstance,whileshewasrequiredtoadherestrictly N
tothescript,aJewishstudenthadreceivedpermissiontomisscertainclass @ exercisesforreligiousreasonswithoutsufferingadverseconsequences.Id.at 2 1298.Infact,theuniversitysometimesgrantedtheplaintiffherselfanexemption $t fromthescriptadherencerequirement.Id.at1299.Thisevidenceraiseda f materialfactissueastowhethertheuniversitydeployed apatternofadhoc X discretionarydecisions amountingtoa systemofindividualizedexemptions. J Seeid. < ThecumulativeteachingsofSmith,CityofHialeah,Swanson,Messiah !. Baptist,andAxsonFlynnsupporttheconclusionthattheCity szoningcodedoes # notamounttoasystemofindividualizedexemptionstriggeringstrictscrutiny. %!" First,andinstarkcontrastwithCityofHialeah,thereisnoevidenceinthiscase '#$ suggestingtheordinancewaspassedduetoreligiousanimus.See508U.S.at524 )$& (determiningthatcity sassertedinterestsagainstcrueltytoanimalsandin +&( promotingpublichealth werepursuedonlywithrespecttoconductmotivatedby religiousbeliefs ).InCityofHialeah,theSanterians provisionofmyriadfacts demonstratingthattheordinanceatissuespecificallyandpurposelytargeted SanteriaanimalsacrificepromptedtheCourttoapplystrictscrutiny.Id.at534
38.GraceUnitedhasnotmadeasimilarshowinghere.Indeed,therecordis x
devoidofanyindiciathattheCityenactedtheLR1zoningregulationswiththe j
purposeofrestrictingorsuppressingthefreeexerciseofanyreligionorreligious \
group,letalonetheMethodistChurch.ThestatedobjectivesoftheCity szoning N
ordinanceare,interalia,(1)topromotethehealth,safety,andgeneralwelfareof @ thecitizensofCheyenneandLaramiecounty;(2)tolessencongestioninthe 2 streets;(3)tocreateanattractivelivingandworkingenvironment;(4)toprevent $t theovercrowdingofland;and(5)tofacilitateprovisionsfortransportation,water, f sewage,schools,parks,andotherpublicrequirements.SeeCheyenneCityCode X 17.04.010.GraceUnitedfailedtoprofferanyevidencesuggestingthatthe J objectandpurposeofthezoningregulationsareanythingotherthanthose < expresslystatedtherein. !. Second,andinconsistentwiththerequirementsofAxsonFlynn,Grace # Unitedhasnotpointedtoanyevidencetosupportitsconclusoryallegationthat %!" theCityspecificallytargetedreligiousgroupsortheMethodistdenominationin '#$ itsenforcementoftheordinanceinthiscase.TheChurchdoesnotsuggestthe )$& BoardofAdjustmentmadeanystatementsamountingtoantireligiousoranti +&( Methodistsentiment,orallowedsomegroupstooperatedaycarecentersinLR1 zoneswhiledenyingtheChurchthesameopportunity.Infact,theBoardclaims itdidnothavethe authorityordiscretion topermitanyonetooperateadaycare centerinaresidentialzone.Aplt.App.,vol.VIat2527.GraceUnitedmakesno
attempttocontrovertthiscontention.Moreover,theLR1zoningordinanceonits x
facesupportstheBoard sconclusionthatithasnoauthoritytograntavariance j
forpurposesofoperatingadaycarecenterinaresidentialzone.SeeCheyenne \
CityCode17.36.0100.20;seealsoAplt.App.,vol.VIat2520(Boardof N
AdjustmentAgendanotingzoningordinance20.010(34)(c)definesdaycare @ centerasa businessforprofitorotherwise,wheretwelveormorechildrenare 2 caredforonaregularbasis ).TheBoard smandatorydenialoftheChurch s $t varianceinthiscaseisthusverydifferentfromthegovernmentemployee s f discretionarydenialofMs.Sherbert sunemploymentbenefitsinSherbert,374 X U.S.at399402,ortheuniversity sallegedlyadhocanddiscretionarilyenforced J scriptadherencerequirementinAxsonFlynn,356F.3dat129899. < NoristhisacasewheretheCity,byvirtueofitszoninglaws, devalues !. religiousreasonsfor[operatingadaycarecenter]byjudgingthemtobeoflesser # importthannonreligiousreasons. CityofHialeah,508U.S.at53738;compare %!" FraternalOrderofPoliceNewarkLodgeNo.12v.CityofNewark,170F.3d359, '#$ 36466(3rdCir.1999)(lawnotgenerallyapplicablewhere,incontraventionto )$& generalprohibitionoffacialhair,# D c D # c D D Ԁpoliceofficersallowedtogrowbeardsfor +&( medicalreasonsbutdeniedsameexceptionforreligiousreasons),withFirst AssemblyofGodofNaples,20F.3dat423(zoningordinanceregulatinghomeless shelterlocationandadministrationgenerallyapplicablewhereapplied toall grouphomes...regardlessoftheirownershipor_ affiliation. )_ ԀInthepresent
case,alldaycarecentersareprohibitedfromtheresidentialzonewherethe x
Churchresides.Thereisnoevidencethatseculardaycarecentershavebeen j
permittedtooperateregardlessofthezoningordinance,whilereligious \
organizationsliketheChurchhavebeendeniedsuchanexception.Hence,thisis N
notacontroversyinwhichtheCitymadea valuejudgmentinfavorofsecular @ motivations,butnotreligiousmotivations.... FraternalOrderofPolice 2 NewarkLodgeNo.12,170F.3dat365.# D c D # c D D $t WhileitistruethattheBoardheldahearingtoevaluatetheChurch s f daycarerequest,weexplainedinAxsonFlynn: X 8 Whileofcourseittakessomedegreeofindividualizedinquiryto J determinewhetherapersoniseligibleforevenastrictlydefined C exemption,thatkindoflimitedyes-or-noinquiryisqualitatively < differentfromthekindofcase-by-casesystemenvisionedbythe 5 SmithCourtinitsdiscussionofSherbertandrelatedcases. !. Id.at1298.Thus,thefactthattheBoarddecidedtoholdahearingtodetermine # whethertheChurch susefellintoanobjectiveexceptioncategorydoesnotlead %!" usautomaticallytoconcludetheBoardwasengagedinasystemofsubjective '#$ individualizedassessments.Indeed,weheldinSwanson# D c Dc # c D D thataregulation )$& containingbroad,objectiveexceptionsdoesnotestablishasubjectivesystemof +&( individualizedconsiderations.135F.3dat701.Thesamelogicapplieshere. AlthoughtheCityofCheyenne szoningordinanceallowsforlimitedobjective exceptionsintheLR1zone(suchaschurches,schools,andothersimilaruses) theregulationbarsanyorganizationorindividualfromoperatingadaycarecenter
inthisresidentialzone,foreithersecularorreligiousreasons.TheCityhasnot x
departedfromthatpolicy. j
Finally,wearenotpersuadedbyGraceUnited sassertionthattheBoard s \ denialofazoningvarianceforitsproposeddaycareoperationconstitutesmore N
thananincidentalburdenonreligiousconduct.AswemadeclearinMessiah @ BaptistChurch,whileGraceUnitedhasarighttooperateadaycareinCheyenne, 2 ithasnorighttobuilditsdaycareexactlywhereitpleases.859F.2dat826. $t [T]herecordcontainsnoevidencethatbuildinga[daycarecenter]orbuildinga f [daycarecenter]ontheparticularsiteisintimatelyrelatedtothereligioustenets X of GraceUnited.Id.at82425.Infact,asthedistrictcourtcorrectlyobserved, J 8 GraceUnitedcouldoperateitsreligiouseducationprogramin < anotherareaofCheyennethatisproperlyzonedforsuchan 5 operation.Or,GraceUnitedcouldoperateitsreligiouseducation !. programinitspresentbuilding,whereithasSundayschoolfacilities, "' butnotuponsuchagrandiosescaleasthedaycarecenteritnow # wishestoconstruct.IffromitspresentSundayschooloftwelveto $ ! twentytherehadbeensuchgreatgrowthandexpansionthatitwas %!" necessarytoexpandtheschooltoonehundred,thenonemightnot & "# doubtthebonafidesofGraceUnited schurch.... '#$ GraceUnitedMethodistChurch,235F.Supp.2dat1201. )$& Insum,therewasnoevidencethattheBoardeverinterpretedtheexempt +&( categoriestoincludecertaindaycareoperationsandnotothers,orthatthe ordinancewasenactedbasedonreligiousanimus.ThefactthattheBoard consistentlyconcludeditwaswithoutdiscretiontograntvariancesfordaycare facilitiesinLR1zonesdefeatstheargumentthatitdeployedasystemof
subjectiveconsiderationsrunningafoulofthefreeexerciseclause.TheFirst x
AmendmentsimplydoesnotentitletheChurchtospecialtreatmentsothatitmay j
operateadaycareexactlywhereitpleaseswhilenooneelsecandothesame.See \
Swanson,135F.3dat702( NothingintheFreeExerciseClauserequiresthat N
suchspecialtreatmentbeprovided. ).Thus,evenviewingtheevidenceinthe @ lightmostfavorabletoGraceUnited,wesimplycannotconcludetheCitywas 2 engaginginapatternofadhocdiscretionarydecisionmakingamountingtoa $t systemofindividualassessmentsthatwouldtriggerstrictscrutiny.Weholdthat f Cheyenne szoningordinanceconstitutesaneutralpolicyofgeneralapplicability X whichdoesnotoffendfreeexerciseprinciples. J @ VV HybridRightsException !. GraceUnitedalsoarguesthatitsclaimisnotgovernedbySmith srational # basisexceptiontogeneralstrictscrutinyreviewoffreeexerciseclaimsbecauseit %!" isa hybrid ofbothfreeexerciserightsandotherconstitutionallyprotected '#$ rights.TheCitycontendstothecontrarythatalthoughtheChurchhasalleged )$& numerousconstitutionalclaimsinadditiontoafreeexercisechallenge,ithas +&( failedtoestablisha colorableclaim ofacompanionconstitutionalviolationas requiredbySwansonandAxsonFlynn.Inthealternative,theCitymaintainsthat theparametersofthe hybridrights doctrinewerenotclearlyestablishedatthe timetheCityactedinthiscase,anditisthereforeentitledtoqualifiedimmunity
withrespecttoanyhybridclaim. x
c XbX X c D # c D Xc XbX # Insupportofitscoreholdingthatneutralrulesofgeneralapplicability j
normallydonotraisefreeexerciseconcerns,theCourtinSmithattemptedto \
harmonizefreeexercisejurisprudencebydistinguishingSmithfromprecedent. N
AccordingtotheCourt, [t]heonlydecisionsinwhichwehaveheldthattheFirst @ Amendmentbarsapplicationofaneutral,generallyapplicablelawtoreligiously 2 motivatedactionhaveinvolvednottheFreeExerciseClausealone,buttheFree $t ExerciseClauseinconjunctionwithotherconstitutionalprotections. 494U.S.at f 881.Smiththuscarvedoutanexceptionfor hybridrights claims,holdingthata X partycouldestablishaviolationofthefreeexerciseclauseeveninthecaseofa J neutrallawofgeneralapplicabilitybyshowingthatthechallengedgovernmental < actioncompromisedboththerighttofreeexerciseofreligionandanindependent !. constitutionalright. c XbX X c D ԀId. # # c D Xc XbXw # Thehybridrightsdoctrineiscontroversial.Ithasbeencharacterizedas %!" meredictanotbindingonlowercourts,Knightv.Conn.Dep tofPub.Health, '#$
275F.3d156,167(2dCir.2001);criticizedasillogical,Kissingerv.Bd.ofTrs. )$& ofOhioStateUniv.,5F.3d177,180(6thCir.1993);anddismissedasuntenable. l
] # 2
׀
Courtsarealsodividedonthestrengthoftheindependentconstitutionalright claimthatisrequiredtoassertacognizablehybridrightsclaim,withanumberof courts,includingthiscircuit,expressingtheviewthatalitigantisrequiredto
assertatleasta colorable claimtoanindependentconstitutionalrighttosurvive x
summaryjudgment.Swanson,135F.3dat700;_ Axson_ ԄFlynn,356F.3dat1295. j
InAxsonFlynn,weheldthatwewould onlyapplythehybridrights \ exceptiontoSmithwheretheplaintiffestablishesa fairprobability,ora N
likelihood, ofsuccessonthecompanionclaim. 356F.3dat1295.We @ emphasizedthat theSmithcourtitselfdidnothaveanexpansivestandardin 2 mindforaseparatehybridrightscauseofactionoritwouldhavefoundahybrid $t rightsclaimonthefactsbeforeit. Id.at1296(citingMichaelW.McConnell, f FreeExerciseRevisionismandtheSmithDecision,57U.Chi.L.Rev.1109,1122 X (1990)).AsAxsonFlynnteaches,the colorable inquiryis factdrivenand J mustbeusedtoexaminehybridrightsonacasebycasebasis. Id.at1297.As < explainedbelow,whileGraceUnitedallegesseveralconstitutionalviolations,it hasnotpresentedacolorableindependentconstitutionalclaim._ k
] # 3
_ Ԁ
x FreedomofSpeechandAssociation
GraceUnitedclaimsthatitsspeechandassociationalrightswereviolated x bytheCity sdenialofthevariancetooperatetheproposeddaycarecenter j
becausetheChurchisnowprohibitedfromgatheringtogetherchildrentoteachits \
message.ThedistrictcourtdismissedtheseclaimsbecauseinitsviewtheCity s N
landuseregulationswereunrelatedtoexpressionandtherewasnoevidence @ presentedthatthezoningregulationsaffectedtheabilityoftheChurchmembers 2 tospeak,assemble,orassociatewithoneanother.Weagree. $t TheFirstAmendmentprohibitsgovernmentdecisionmakersfrom abridgingthefreedomofspeech,...ortherightofthepeoplepeaceablyto assemble. U.S.Const.amend.I. Content-basedrestrictionsonspeech,those whichsuppress,disadvantage,orimposedifferentialburdensuponspeech
becauseofitscontentaresubjecttothemostexactingscrutiny, Z.J.GiftsD-2, x
L.L.C.v.CityofAurora,136F.3d683,686(10thCir.1998)(internalcitations j
andquotationsomitted),whilecontentneutralregulationsthatonlyincidentally \
burdenspeecharesubjecttointermediatescrutiny.SeeClarkv.Cmty.for N
CreativeNon-Violence,468U.S.288,293(1984);UnitedStatesv.O Brien,391 @ U.S.367,377(1968). 2 Asexplainedabove,theCity szoningordinanceisneutralandgenerally $t applicable,placingGraceUnitedonanequalfootingwithotherreligiousand f nonreligiousentitiesseekingtobuildandoperateadaycarecenterinCheyenne. X Itisundisputedthattheordinancedoesnotregulateanyformofspeechonits J face.Moreover,noevidencewaspresentedindicatingthattheordinancewas < passedforthepurposeofcurtailingorcontrollingthecontentofexpression.As !. such,theordinanceiscontentneutral.Wardv.RockAgainstRacism,491U.S. # 781,791(1989)(regulationwhich servespurposesunrelatedtothecontentof %!" expression isconsideredneutral evenifithasanincidentaleffectonsome '#$ speakersormessagesbutnotothers );seealsoGascoe,Ltd.v.Newtown )$& Township,699F.Supp.1092,1095(E.D.Pa.1988)( municipality srighttouse +&( e O
e e
e
itszoningpowerinthepublicinterestisperhapstheparadigmof[acontent e neutral]restriction ).Becausethechallengedzoningordinanceiscontentneutral, W itsurvivesintermediatescrutinysolongastheCitycanestablishthatthe I regulation advancesimportantgovernmentalinterestsunrelatedtothe ;
suppressionoffreespeechanddoesnotburdensubstantiallymorespeechthan -
necessarytofurtherthoseinterests. TurnerBroad.Sys.,Inc.v.FCC,520U.S.
180,189(1997)(citingO Brien,391U.S.at377);Cmty.forCreative
Non-Violence,468U.S.at293.
ThereisnoquestionthatCheyennehasasubstantialinterestinregulating theuseofitslandandthatitszoningregulationspromotethatinterest.Cityof Rentonv.PlaytimeTheatres,Inc.,475U.S.41,50(1986)(assertingthat acity s t interestinattemptingtopreservethequalityofurbanlifeisonethatmustbe f accordedhighrespect, quotingYoungv.Am.MiniTheatres,Inc.,427U.S.50, X 71(1976)(pluralityopinion)).Moreover,thezoningordinancedoesnotburden J anymorespeechthannecessarytofurtherthosesubstantialinterests.Notonly < mayGraceUnitedfreelydisseminateitsreligiousmessageintheLR1zone,but !. itmaydisseminatereligiousspeechinanyzoneintheCity.TheChurchis # entitledtooperateitsdaycarecenterinanyoneofCheyenne s28zonesthatis w%!" properlyzonedforsuchafacility.Aple.Br.at17.Byinvokingthespecial i'#$ permitprocess,GraceUnitedcouldevenattempttoaltertheChurchproperty s [)$& zonedesignationtoonethatpermitstheoperationofdaycarefacilities.The M+&( Churchmadenoattempttotakeadvantageoftheestablishedproceduresavailable e tospecialpermitapplicants.Insum,becausetheCityhasanimportant W governmentalinterestinregulatinglanduse,anditszoningregulationsare I unrelatedtothesuppressionofspeechanddonotburdenanymorespeechthan ;
necessary,thechallengedordinancesurvivesintermediatescrutiny. -
Inadditiontofreedomofspeech,theFirstAmendmentalsoimplicitly
protectsthecorrespondingfreedomtoexpressiveassociation.
Robertsv.United StatesJaycees,468U.S.609,622(1984)( wehavelongunderstoodasimplicitin
therighttoengageinactivitiesprotectedbytheFirstAmendmenta correspondingrighttoassociatewithothersinpursuitofawidevarietyof political,social,economic,educational,religious,andculturalends );Citizens t AgainstRentControlv.CityofBerkeley,454U.S.290,295(1981)(emphasizing f theimportanceoffreedomofassociationinguaranteeingtherightofpeopleto X maketheirvoicesheardonpublicissues ).TheFirstAmendmentprotects J associationalandassemblyrightsintwodistinctways: < 8 First,theCourthasheldthattheConstitutionprotectsagainst !. unjustifiedgovernmentinterferencewithanindividual schoiceto "' enterintoandmaintaincertainintimateorprivaterelationships. # Second,theCourthasupheldthefreedomofindividualstoassociate ~$ ! forthepurposeofengaginginprotectedspeechorreligious w%!" activities. p& "# Bd.ofDirs.ofRotaryInt lv.RotaryClubofDuarte,481U.S.537,544(1987). b(#% Ofcourse,therightofassociationisnomoreabsolutethantherightoffree T*%' speechoranyotherright;consequentlytheremaybecountervailingprinciples e thatprevailovertherightofassociation. Walkerv.CityofKansasCity,911 W F.2d80,89n.11(8thCir.1990). I Aspreviouslyexplained,Cheyenne szoningordinanceiscontentneutral ;
andtheChurchprovidednoevidencethatthechallengedregulationswere -
motivatedbyadesiretocurtailprotectedspeechorassociationalrights.Rather,
theevidenceontherecordsuggeststhattheordinancewaspassedforthepurpose
ofregulatingtraffic,noiseandpollutioninaresidentialzone.Thelanduselaws
donotinterferewiththecongregation srighttospeakopenlyandfreelyor associatewithoneanother.Eveninthecontextoftheproposeddaycarecenter, theordinanceonlyinterfereswiththecongregation sabilitytoconductthat t particularoperationataspecificlocation,and,aspreviouslystated,a churchhas f noconstitutionalrighttobefreefromreasonablezoningregulationsnordoesa X churchhaveaconstitutionalrighttobuilditshouseofworshipwhereitpleases. J MessiahBaptistChurch,859F.2dat826.TheCity szoningregulationsare < unrelatedtothesuppressionofspeechorassemblyanddonotburdenanymore !. speechorassociationalrightsthannecessarytofurthertheCity ssubstantial # interestinregulatingtraffic,noiseandpollutioninaresidentialzone.Therefore, w%!" thefactthatGraceUnitedmustcomplywiththeCity szoningregulationsdoes i'#$ notviolateitsrightstofreespeechorassociation. [)$& M+&( & DueProcess e GraceUnitedcontendstheCity szoningordinanceviolates' e: itsrighttodue W processbecausetheregulationisarbitraryandunreasonable.Itarguesthatthere I isnobasisfortheexclusionofreligioususesfromlowdensityresidential ;
neighborhoods,particularlywhenschoolsarepermittedinsuchneighborhoods. -
ThedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentfortheCityonGraceUnited sdue
processclaim.
InMessiahBaptistChurch,859F.2dat822,wearticulatedthe testfor
measuringtheconstitutionalityofazoningordinance undertheDueProcess Clause: 8 [B]eforeazoningordinancecanbedeclaredunconstitutionalondue t processgrounds,theprovisionsmustbeclearlyarbitraryand m unreasonable,havingnosubstantialrelationtothepublichealth, f safety,morals,orgeneralwelfare....Ifthevalidityoftheland _ classificationis fairlydebatable, thelegislativejudgmentmust X control. Q Id.(citingVillageofEuclidv.AmblerRealtyCo.,272U.S.365,388,395(1926)) C (internalcitationsomitted).Aswehavealreadyindicated,theordinanceatissue 5 herecertainlyhasa substantialrelationtothepublichealth,safety...orgeneral "' welfare ofCheyenne.Id.WesimplycannotconcludethattheBoard srefusalto ~$ ! grantavarianceinalowdensityresidentialzoneforadaycarecentercapableof p& "# accommodatingonehundredchildren,eighteenhoursaday,sevendaysaweek,is b(#% clearlyarbitraryandunreasonable.Even ifthevalidityofthelandclassification T*%' is fairlydebatable, thelegislativejudgment[oftheCity]mustcontrol. Id. e Ѐ W EqualProtection I GraceUnitedalsomaintainsthedistrictcourterredinrulingthattheCity s ;
ordinancedoesnotviolatetheequalprotectionclause.AccordingtotheChurch, -
thezoningregulationtreatsGraceUnited sproposedlandusedifferentlyand
moreonerouslythanotherreligiousandsecularusesoflandinviolationofthe
FourteenthAmendment.TheCityrespondsthatGraceUnited sequalprotection
claimwasproperlydismissedbecausetheChurchfailedtoprofferanyevidence ofdisparatetreatment. Theequalprotectionclauseprovidesthat [n]ostateshall...denytoany t personwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws. U.S.Const. f amend.XIV,1.Equalprotection isessentiallyadirectionthatallpersons X similarlysituatedshouldbetreatedalike. CityofCleburnev.CleburneLiving J Ctr.,473U.S.432,439(1985).AlthoughGraceUnitedassertsthatitistreated < differentlythanothers,ithasnotprovidedevenoneexampleofsuchdisparate !. treatment.Inanyevent,becausetheChurchdoesnotcontenditiseithera # memberofasuspectclassorwasdeniedafundamentalright,theCity szoning w%!" ordinanceneedonlyberationallyrelatedtoalegitimategovernmentpurposeto i'#$ passmusterundertheequalprotectionclause.SavePalisadeFruitLandsv.Todd, [)$& 279F.3d1204,1213(10thCir.2002). M+&( TherecanbelittledoubtthattheCity szoningordinanceisrationally e relatedtoalegitimategovernmentpurpose:thepromotionofpublichealth, W safety,andgeneralwelfareofthecitizensofCheyenneviathecontroloftraffic, I noise,andpollution.Asarticulatedbythedistrictcourt, [m]unicipalzoninghas ;
beenacommonandacceptedexerciseofthepolicepowertoprotectcityresidents -
fromtheeffectsofurbanization,overcrowding,andencroachmentofcommercial
businessforoverthreequartersofacentury. GraceUnitedMethodistChurch,
235F.Supp.2dat1207(citingVillageofEuclid,272U.S.365).TheCityhas
allowedGraceUnitedtooperateaMethodistchurchinaresidentialzonewithout interferencesince1956.TheChurchisnotseekingsimilartreatmentinits requesttooperatealargecommercialdaycarecenteratthatlocation;rather,itis t seekingpreferentialtreatmentattheexpenseoftheotherlandownersintheLR1 f zone.WethereforeeasilyagreewiththedistrictcourtthatGraceUnitedfailedto X stateacognizableequalprotectionclaim. J @ aa) III !. JuryInstructionsonGraceUnited sRLUIPAClaim # GraceUnitedarguedtothejurythattheCity srefusaltogranttheChurch s w%!" requestedvarianceforthedaycarecenterviolatedRLUIPA.Relyingexclusively i'#$ onitsfindingthattheproposeddaycareoperationwasnotasincereexerciseof [)$& religiousbelief,thejuryruledinfavoroftheCity.GraceUnitedmaintainsthe M+&( jurywronglyreachedthatconclusionbecausethedistrictcourt sjuryinstructions e detailingtherequirementsoftheRLUIPAclaimwereerroneousasamatterof W law. I Wereviewdenovowhether,asawhole,thedistrictcourt sjury ;
instructionscorrectlystatedthegoverninglawandprovidedthejurywithan -
ampleunderstandingoftheissuesandapplicablestandards.SeeReedv.Landstar
Ligon,Inc.,314F.3d447,450(10thCir.2002);MorrisonKnudsenCorp.v.
Fireman sFundIns.Co.,175F.3d1221,1235(10thCir.1999)( Ourconcernis
toensurethatourreviewdoesnotleaveuswithsubstantialdoubtwhetherthe instructions,consideredasawhole,properlyguidedthejuryinitsdeliberations. (internalquotationomitted)). Evenifareviewoftheinstructions,readin t isolationfromtherestofthetrial,didleavethiscourtwithasubstantialdoubt,it f wouldthenbenecessarytodeterminewhetheranyerrorprejudiced Grace X United.Id.at1236;seealsoNederv.UnitedStates,527U.S.1,15-16(1999) J (applyingharmlesserrortesttojuryinstructions);Lusbyv.T.G.&Y.Stores,Inc., < 796F.2d1307,1310(10thCir.1986)( Harmlesserroranalysisnormallyapplies !. incivilcases...anditspecificallyappliestofaultyjuryinstructions. (citing28 # U.S.C.2111;Fed.R.Civ.P.61)). w%!" JuryInstruction19addressedRLUIPA srequirementthattheChurchprove i'#$ anexerciseofitssincerelyheldreligiousbeliefwas substantiallyburdened by [)$& theCity sdenialoftherequestedvariance.Aple.Supp.App.at83.The M+&( instructioninformedthejurythatGraceUnitedcouldnotbaseitsclaimon e religiousactivitiesunlessthoseactivitieswere fundamental toitsreligion.Id. W Specifically,thecourtinstructedthejurythatprotectedreligiousexerciseunder I RLUIPAwasrestrictedto conductorexpressionthatmanifestssometenetofthe ;
institution sbelief andcurtailsits abilitytoexpressadherencetoitsfaith, or -
deniesit reasonableopportunitiestoengageinthoseactivitiesthatare
fundamentaltotheinstitution sreligion. m
] # 4
׀Aplt.App.,vol.Vat2262(emphasis
added).GraceUnitedobjectedtoInstruction19andaskedthecourttosubstitute
theword important for fundamental, whichthecourtrefusedtodo.Id.at 215152.TheChurchcontendsInstruction19erroneouslyoverstateditsburden becauseRLUIPAdoesnotrequirethereligiousactivitythatissubstantially t burdenedbythelanduseregulationatissuetobe fundamental. f TheCity,ontheotherhand,maintainsthatInstruction19correctly X articulatestheconstitutionalsubstantialburdentest.Itfurtherassertsthateven J assumingInstruction19waserroneous,itwasharmlessbecauseitwasbutoneof e severalinstructionssettingforththeelementsthatGraceUnitedwasobligatedto W proveunderRLUIPA,andtheotherinstructionsdidnotincludetheextraand I allegedlyerroneousrequirementthattheintendedactivitybefundamentalto ;
religiousexercise. -
RLUIPAsetsupastrictscrutinystandardfortheimplementationofland
useregulations.Inessence,alanduseregulationcannot substantiallyburden
religiousexercise unlessthegovernmentcanshowtheregulationfurthersa
compellinggovernmentalinterestandistheleastrestrictivemeansoffurthering thatinterest.42U.S.C.2000cc1(a).
] # 5
׀Thestatutealsocontainsa f O#
f ee
f
nondiscriminationprovision,whichprohibitslanduseregulationsthateither e disfavorreligioususesrelativetononreligioususesorunreasonablyexclude W religioususesfromaparticularjurisdiction.Id.2000cc(b). o t
] # 6
׀AlthoughRLUIPA I providesaverybroaddefinitionof religiousexercise, id.2000cc5(7)(A) ;
(religiousexercise includesanyexerciseofreligion,whetherornotcompelled -
by,orcentralto,asystemofreligiousbelief ),itfailstodefine substantial
burden. Nevertheless,RLUIPA slegislativehistoryrevealsthat substantial
burden istobeinterpretedbyreferencetotheReligiousFreedomRestoration
Actof1993(RFRA),42U.S.C.2000bbetseq.,andFirstAmendment g W$
g e
g
jurisprudence.See146Cong.Rec.777401,7776( Theterm substantial e burden asusedinthisActisnotintendedtobegivenanybroaderinterpretation W thantheSupremeCourt sarticulationoftheconceptofsubstantialburdenor I religiousexercise. );seealsoCivilLibertiesforUrbanBelievers,342F.3dat ;
76061. -
TheCityreliesonThiryv.Carlson,78F.3d1491,1495(10thCir.1996),to
illustratethatInstruction19representsacorrectstatementofthesubstantial
burdentest.ThequestioninThirywaswhethertheplaintiffs rightsunderRFRA
wouldbeviolatedifaparceloftheirpropertycontainingthegraveoftheir stillborndaughterwastakenforpublichighwaypurposes,necessitatingthe relocationofthegravesite.Id.at1493.Concerningthedefinitionofsubstantial t burden,wenotedthatLyngv.Nw.IndianCemeteryProtectiveAss n,485U.S. f 439(1988),wascontrolling.Thiry,78F.3dat1495.TheSupremeCourtstated X therethattheincidentaleffectsofotherwiselawfulgovernmentprograms which J maymakeitmoredifficulttopracticecertainreligionsbutwhichhaveno < tendencytocoerceindividualsintoactingcontrarytotheirreligiousbeliefs do !. notconstitutesubstantialburdensontheexerciseofreligion.Id.(quotingLyng, # 485U.S.at45051). w%!" WeacknowledgedinThiryourstatementinWernerv.McCotter,49F.3d i'#$ 1476(10thCir.1995), [)$& 8 thattoexceedRFRA s substantialburden threshold,government M+&( regulation! mustsignificantlyinhibitorconstrainconductor F,') expressionthatmanifestssomecentraltenetof...[anindividual s] e beliefs;mustmeaningfullycurtail[anindividual s]abilitytoexpress ^ adherencetohisorherfaith;ormustdeny[anindividual]reasonable W opportunitiestoengageinthoseactivitiesthatarefundamentalto[an P individual s]religion. I Thiry,78F.3dat1495(quotingWerner,49F.3dat1480)(emphasisadded)). ;
ThisquotationfromWernermirrorsthedefinitionofsubstantialburdenadopted -
bythedistrictcourtinInstruction19.Recognizingthetensionbetweenthe
standardarticulatedinLyngandthetestlaidoutinWerner,wenotedthat
Werner sstatusasaprisonercase mayexplainwhy[thecourt]failedentirelyto
addressthe... substantialburden standardinLyng, butwealsoconcluded that [t]hereasoningofWerner...istoobroadtopermitaprisoner/nonprisoner distinction. Id.WeneverthelessfounditunnecessarytoreconcileWerner s t languagewithLyngbecauseweagreedwiththedistrictcourtthattheThirysdid f notestablishasubstantialburdenunderanyplausiblereadingofthestatute.Id. X Thus,whileweacknowledgedthedifferentandconflictinglanguageusedto J definesubstantialburdeninLyngandWerner,weneitherendorsedtheWerner < standardnorresolvedtheissueinThiry. !. GraceUnited,relyingonourdecisioninKikumurav.Hurley,242F.3d950, # 96061(10thCir.2001),# @m c @mw # c @m @m Ԁcontendsthedefinitionofreligiousexercisewas w%!" deliberatelyrelaxedinRLUIPAandthatalimitationofreligiousexerciseto i'#$ fundamental activitiesdoesnotapplytoRLUIPAclaims.Kikumurainvolveda [)$& causeofactionbroughtbyafederalprisonerseekinginjunctivereliefonthebasis M+&( thatprisonofficialshadviolatedhisFirstandFifthAmendmentrightsaswellas e RFRAbydenyinghimpastoralvisitsfromhisChristianminister.Id.at95355. W Inrulingthatthepastoralvisitsrequestedbytheprisonerwereprotected I activitiesunderRFRA,westated: ;
8
Theterm exerciseofreligion waspreviouslydefinedinRFRAas - theexerciseofreligionundertheFirstAmendmenttothe &
Constitution. See42U.S.C.2000bb2(4)(1999).RLUIPA
amendedRFRA,however,sothat exerciseofreligion nowmeans
religiousexercise,asdefinedin[42U.S.C.]2000cc-5. Id.
2000bb-2(4). [R]eligiousexercise isdefinedin42U.S.C.
2000cc-5(7)(A)toinclude anyexerciseofreligion,whetherornot
compelledby,orcentralto,asystemofreligiousbelief. Plaintiff doesnotclaimtherequestedpastoralvisitswererequiredbyhis religiousbeliefs.Underthedefinitionof religiousexercise in42 U.S.C.2000cc-5(7)(A),however,areligiousexerciseneednotbe mandatoryforittobeprotectedunderRFRA.Plaintiffmaintains { thathisdesiretostudyChristianityandpracticeChristianprayer t necessitatedvisitsbyChristianpastors,andthatReverendRickard m wasparticularlyappropriatebecauseofhisexperienceasaChristian f missionaryinJapan,Plaintiff snativecountry.Pastoralvisitsofthis _ natureareprotectedactivitiesunderRFRA,particularlyinlightof X thenewdefinitionof exerciseofreligion adoptedinRLUIPA.See Q id.2000cc-5(7)(A). J Id.at96061(emphasisadded).Inotherwords,whateverthesubstantialburden < testrequiredpriortothepassageofRLUIPA,thestatutesubstantiallymodified !. andrelaxedthedefinitionof religiousexercise. Assuch,Instruction19 # improperlyarticulatedthesubstantialburdentest,regardlessofwhatthiscourt w%!" saidinWerner,andarguablyinThiry,byrequiringthereligiousactivitiesthat i'#$ weresubstantiallyburdenedtobe fundamental. Thedistrictcourt sdecisionto [)$& modifythephrase activities with fundamental intheJuryInstruction19was M+&( thereforeerroneous. e Thequestionremainswhethertheerrorwasharmless.Ouranswerturnson W whetherthedistrictcourt serroneousjuryinstructionwasprejudicialtoGrace I United.Daveyv.LockheedMartinCorp.,301F.3d1204,1212(10thCir.2002) ;
( [a]nerrorinjuryinstructionswillmandatereversalofajudgmentonlyifthe -
errorisdeterminedtohavebeenprejudicial (quotationomitted)).# @m c @m' # c @m @m TheCity
contendsthatevenifInstruction19erroneouslydefinedthesubstantialburden
test,anyerrorwasharmlessbecauseInstructions17, p
] # 7
׀18, q Q
] # 8
׀and20 r
] # 9
׀providedan e
accuratedescriptionofthelawofRLUIPAforthejuryanddidnotincludethe W extra(anderroneous)requirementthattheactivityatissuebefundamentalto I religiousexercise. ;
Whileitistruethatthedistrictcourtcorrectlyarticulatedthedefinitionof - religiousexercise inInstruction17,areasonablejurorcouldhavebeenmisled
bythecourt serroneousarticulationofthesubstantialburdentestprovided e momentslaterinInstruction19.Nevertheless,weareconvincedareasonable W jurorcouldnothavebeenmisledtoGraceUnited sdetrimentbyInstruction19 I becausethejuryfoundthattheChurchfailedtoproveitwasengagedinasincere ;
exerciseofreligion.
] # 10
׀Asaconsequence,thesubstantialburdenissuebecame -
irrelevant.Becausethejurywasnevermisledaboutthelegalrequirementsfor
findingasincerereligiousbelief,weconcludewithconfidencethatInstruction
19 serrorhadnoimpactwhatsoeverontheoutcomeoftheproceedingsinthe
districtcourt.Sanjuanv.IBP,Inc.,160F.3d1291,1296(10thCir.1998) ( Evidenceadmittedinerrorcanonlybeprejudicialifitcanbereasonably concludedthat...withoutsuchevidence,therewouldhavebeenacontrary t result. ).ItnecessarilyfollowsthattheerroroneousdescriptionofRLUIPA s f substantialburdentestinInstruction19washarmlessasamatteroflaw. X
J @ kk)
&
IV
e @ AdmissibilityofBishopBrown sLetter W SubsequenttotheBoardofAdjustment sdecisiontodeny' e@ GraceUnited s I requestforavariancetooperatethedaycarecenter,theChurch spastor,Jon ;
Laughlin,sentalettertoBishopWarnerBrown,thepresidingBishopoverthe -
RockyMountainandYellowstoneConferencesoftheUnitedMethodistChurch.
Aplt.App.,vol.IIat81214.TheletterandattachedresolutionfromGrace
Uniteddetailedthehistoryoftheproposeddaycareprojectandrecountedthe
proceedingsatthevariancehearingbeforetheBoard.Id.at813.Italso requested financial,legalandspiritual assistancefromtheBishopandthe ConferenceinpressingRLUIPAlitigation.Id.at814. t BishopBrownrespondedtoPastorLaughlinwithaletterdatedMay18, f 2001.Id.at815.Inthatcorrespondence,theBishopopinedthatGraceUnited s X proposeddaycarecenter seemstolookmorelikeacommercialventureandless J likeareligiousfunction,therebyjustifyingthegovernment scompellinginterest < oflimitingtraffic,noiseandcongestioninaresidentialneighborhood. Id.He !. alsoindicatedthathewasconcernedaboutthedearthoffactsdemonstrating # religiousdiscrimination: w%!" 8 iftheconstitutionalityofRLUIPAweretobetested,Iwouldwant i'#$ thecasetohavefactswhichdemonstratemoreclearlythatachurch b(#% intheConferencewasbeingdiscriminatedagainstorexcludedfrom [)$& acity.Inthiscase,Graceisallowedtooperateintheneighborhood, T*%' andevenexpend[sic]itssanctuaryandchildren seducationwings. M+&( Theonlylimitationonitsrequestisthedenialofavarianceto F,') operateadaycarecenter,amoretraditionalcommercialventure. @ @ e Id. W Duringdiscovery,GraceUnitedprovidedcopiesofthelettertotheCity I withoutanyassertionofprivilege.TheCitylistedthelettersastrialexhibitsand ;
deposedBishopBrownathisofficeinDenver,ColoradoonMay13,2003.Aplt. -
App.,vol.IVat1799.Duringhisdeposition,BishopBrowntestifiedthathis
May18,2001,lettertoPastorLaughlinaccuratelyexpressedtheconcernshehad
atthetimehesenttheletter.Id.at1804.BishopBrownfurtherstatedthatheno
longerheldthoseviewsoftheproposedprojectandnowconsideredthedaycare tobe animportantministry oftheMethodistChurch.Id.at1806. Priortotrial,GraceUnitedfiledamotioninlimineseekingtoexcludethe t Bishop sletter.AccordingtotheChurch,BishopBrownwasnotaspokesmanor f arepresentativeofGraceUnitedMethodistChurchand,asaresult,thecontents X ofhislettercouldnotbeadmittedasstatementsofapartyopponent.Thedistrict J courtdisagreedanddeniedtheChurch smotiontoexcludebasedonitsfinding < thatBishopBrownwasa superintendingauthority ofGraceUnited.Id.,vol.III !. at1118.Thecourtheldtheletteradmissiblepursuanttotheadmissionagainst # interestexceptiontothehearsayrule. {
] # 11
׀# @m c @m 7 # c @m @m BoththeCityandGraceUnitedlisted w%!" BishopBrownasawitnessintheirfinalpretrialmemorandaandtheChurch e calledtheBishopinitscaseinchiefbywayofhisvideotapeddeposition.Id., W vol.IVat179697.GraceUnitedcontendsthedistrictcourt sadmissionofthe I letterconstitutesreversibleerror. ;
GraceUnitedcontendsBishopBrown sletterwasinadmissibleandits - admissionasevidenceconstitutesreversibleerrorbecausetheBishopisnota
representativeoftheChurchandhisopinionsintheletterwerenotrationally
basedonhisperceptions.Wereviewadistrictcourt sdecisiontoadmitevidence
forabuseofdiscretion.# @m c @mP # _ @m @m UnitedStatesv.Jenkins,313F.3d549,559(10thCir. 2002).# @m _ @mT # c @m @m [# @m c @m+U # _ @m @m W]ewillnotdisturbanevidentiaryrulingabsentadistinctshowingthat e itwasbasedonaclearlyerroneousfindingoffactoranerroneousconclusionof W lawormanifestsaclearerrorinjudgment. Id.(citationsomitted). I FederalRuleofEvidence801(d)(2)definestheadmissionbyaparty ;
opponentexclusiontothehearsayruleasfollows: -
8 Thestatementisofferedagainstapartyandis(A)theparty sown
statement,ineitheranindividualorarepresentativecapacityor(B)
astatementofwhichthepartyhasmanifestedanadoptionorbelief
initstruth,or(C)astatementbyapersonauthorizedbythepartyto
makeastatementconcerningthesubject,or(D)astatementbythe
party sagentorservantconcerningamatterwithinthescopeofthe agencyoremployment,madeduringtheexistenceoftherelationship, or(E)astatementbyacoconspiratorofapartyduringthecourseand infurtheranceoftheconspiracy. # @m _ @mrU # c @m @m Fed.R.Evid.801(d)(2)(emphasesadded).BishopBrowntestifiedinhis t depositionthatasBishopoftheRockyMountainConference,heisthe general f superintendent with assignedpresidentialresponsibilityoveranepiscopalarea X where[he]serve[s]asthepresidentofthecorporation...attheannual J conferencelevel. Aplt.App.,vol.IVat1800.The episcopalarea overwhich < BishopBrownpresides includesthestateofUtah,thestateofColorado,andthe !. easternportionofthestateofWyoming. Id.at180001.Withregardtohis # relationshipwithGraceUnited,BishopBrowntestifiedinrelevantpartas w%!" follows: i'#$ 8 A:(BishopBrown):AsabishopIassignthepastorsandessentially [)$& amresponsibleforsupervisingtheirworkwithinthetermsofthe T*%' church sunderstanding.Eachlocalchurchisgivenacertaindegree M+&( ofautonomy,buttheannualconferencebecomessortofthe F,') beneficiaryorthetrustbeneficiary.Intheeventalocalchurchgoes e outofbusiness,thepropertyandassetsofthatlocalchurchwould8 @ ^ thenreverttotheannualconferenceonbehalfofthewhole.8 @ * W 8 0 `
` ` 8 Q:(City sattorney):YourrelationshiptotheGraceUnitedMethodist I ChurchinCheyenneiswhat? B 8 0 `
` ` 8 A:Well,mepersonally? 4 8
8 Q:Correctortheconference. &
8
8 A:Theconference.GraceUnitedMethodistChurchisamemberof
theUnitedMethodistChurchandamemberoftheRockyMountain
Conference.Thatmeanstheygettoelectlaypersonstoattendand
arevotingmembersoftheRockyMountainConferenceforpolicy
makingdecisions.They!RockyMountainConferencethroughme, thebishop,assignstheirpastor,andthatpastorisavotingmember oftheRockyMountainConference.EssentiallyRockyMountain Conference!traditionallyitwasthechurchforpastors,andit s separatefrom!apastorisn tamemberofaparticular { congregation,buttheyareamemberofthatentity,theannual t conference.Thelocalchurchasapartofitsagreementtobeinthe m faithcovenantofbeingaUnited!faithfulUnitedMethodististo f workcooperativelywithotherchurchesinministryandoutreach,and _ thingslikethat.SotheycooperatewithotherMethodistchurches. X They resupervisedbymeorthedistrictsuperintendentIassignto Q supervisetheworkofthepastorandthechurch.They reexpectedto J followourprinciplesandethicsandlegislativeformatfordoingtheir C work. < Id.at1801(emphasesadded).# @m c @mZ # h @m @m Inotherwords,intheUnitedMethodistChurch, !. bishopsareadministrativesuperintendentsofthechurch.Id.Amongtheirduties, # theyareresponsibleforappointingclergytoservelocalchurchesaspastor,for w%!" performingordinations,andforsafeguardingthedoctrineanddisciplineofthe i'#$ Church.# @m h @mPi # c @m @m ԀSeeid. [)$& TotheextentthatBishopBrownhastheabilitytoassignandremovelocal M+&( pastorsatwillwithinhisconferenceandtosupervisetheirwork,heisnecessarily e PastorLaughlin smanageror,asaptlydepictedbythedistrictcourt,Grace W United s superintendent. Indeed,BishopBrowntestifiedthattheConference I providesGraceUnitedwithfinancialsupportingeneraland,underhis ;
supervisionanddirection,providedfundstotheChurchtowagetheinstant -
lawsuit.Id.at1804.Moreover,shouldGraceUnitedgo outofbusiness dueto
financialmismanagementoranyotherreason,thepropertyandassetsofthe
ChurchwouldreverttotheRockyMountainConferenceandtoBishopBrown s
control.Id.at1801.# @m c @mk # _ @m @m ԀBasedonthisevidence,thedistrictcourt s# @m _ @m-o # c @m @m Ԁfindingthat BishopBrownwasa superintendingauthority and,asaresult,arepresentative of# @m c @mo # _ @m @m orapartyauthorizedtospeakforGraceUnited,wasnotclearlyerroneous. t Norwasthecourt sdecisiontoadmittheBishop sletterunderRule801(d)(2)# @m _ @mqp # _ @m @m Ԁan f abuseofdiscretion.# @m _ @mnq # _ @m @m X GraceUnitedalsoarguesthatBishopBrown sletterwasinadmissible J because# @m _ @mq # c @m @m Ԁhisopinionsintheletterwerenotrationallybasedonhisperceptions._ t
] # 12
_ Ԁ < WhileopiniontestimonyadmittedpursuanttoRule701 requiresalaywitnessto e havefirsthandknowledgeoftheeventsheistestifyingaboutsoastopresent W onlythemostaccurateinformationtothefinderoffact, UnitedStatesv.Hoffner, I 777F.2d1423,1425(10thCir.1985),anadmissionofapartyopponentneedsno ;
indiciaoftrustworthinesstobeadmitted.UnitedStatesv.Pinalto,771F.2d457, -
459(10thCir.1985)( Thedistrictcourterroneouslyviewedtrustworthinessasa
separaterequirementofadmissionunderSection801(d)(2)(A). ).Thus,asthe
courtsaidinJewelv.CSXTransp.,Inc.,135F.3d361,365(6thCir.1998), [t]he
admissibilityofstatementsofapartyopponentisgroundednotinthepresumed trustworthinessofthestatements,buton akindofestoppelorwaivertheory,that apartyshouldbeentitledtorelyonhisopponent sstatements. (quotingUnited t Statesv.DiDomenico,78F.3d294,303(7thCir.1996)). f Wehaveexpresslyheldthatanadmissionofapartyopponentmaybe X introducedinevidenceeventhoughthedeclarantlackedpersonalknowledgeof J thematterasserted.Smedrav.Stanek,187F.2d892,894(10thCir.1951) < (statingthat [a]dmissionsdonotcomein,onthegroundthatthepartymaking !. them,isspeakingfromhispersonalknowledge,butuponthegroundthataparty # willnotmakeadmissionsagainsthimselfunlesstheyaretrue (quotation w%!" omitted));accordBlackburnv.UnitedParcelService,Inc.,179F.3d81,96(3d e Cir.1999)( Admissionsbyaparty-opponentneednotbebasedonpersonal W knowledgetobeadmittedunderRule801(d)(2). );UnionMut.LifeIns.Co.v. I ChryslerCorp.,793F.2d1,89(1stCir.1986).QuotingfromtheNotesof ;
AdvisoryCommitteeontheProposedRules,weprovidedinPinaltothesource -
andexplanationfortheRule801(d)(2)exceptionfromthepersonalknowledge
requirement:
8 Admissionsbyaparty-opponentareexcludedfromthecategoryof
hearsayonthetheorythattheiradmissibilityinevidenceistheresult oftheadversarysystemratherthansatisfactionoftheconditionsof thehearsayrule[Citationsomitted].Noguaranteeoftrustworthiness isrequiredinthecaseofanadmission.Thefreedomwhich admissionshaveenjoyedfromtechnicaldemandsofsearchingforan { assuranceoftrustworthinessinsomeagainst-interestcircumstance, t andfromrestrictiveinfluencesoftheopinionruleandtherule m requiringfirst-handknowledge,whentakenwiththeapparently f prevalentsatisfactionwiththeresults,callsforageneroustreatment _ ofthisavenueofadmissibility. [Emphasissupplied.] X 771F.2dat459(emphasisadded).Thus,# @m c @mr # _ @m @m anycontentionthatBishopBrown s J letterwasinadmissibleunderRule801(d)(2)because# @m _ @m # c @m @m Ԁhisopinionsintheletter < werenotrationallybasedonhisperceptionslacksmerit. !. Inanyevent,BishopBrown sextensiveexperiencewiththeUnited # MethodistChurchanditsreligiousbeliefsincludeshisserviceasanordained w%!" ministerforthirtyyears,duringwhichheoccupiedsuchdiversepostsaslocal i'#$ pastor,districtsuperintendent,andcouncildirector.Aplt.App.,vol.IVat1801. [)$& Aspreviouslyexplained,theBishopcurrentlyservesintheelectedpositionof M+&( presidingBishopofaconferenceencompassingseveralstates.Id.at180002. e ThereislittledoubtthathiscapaciousemploymentwiththeMethodistChurch W hasprovidedhimmyriadopportunitiestoobservefirsthandthechurch spolicies I andpracticeswithrespecttoitsvariousreligiousbasedprojects.Consequently, ;
hisopinionconcerningthereligiousversusthemoretraditionallycommercial -
natureoftheproposeddaycarecenterlikelywaswellwithinhisowneducation,
observation,andrecollection,andbasedonwhathehadperceivedovertime.
ItisalsoworthnotingthatBishopBrownhadtheright,whichheexercised
inhisMay2003depositiontestimony,tocontradictandexplaintheadmissionshe madeintheMay2001letter.AsthecourtnotedinMurreyv.UnitedStates,73 F.3d1448(7thCir.1996), [p]eopleusuallydon tmakedamagingadmissions t unlesstheyaretrue.Usually,butnotalways.Peoplesometimesdomake f mistakenadmissions,whichiswhyanextrajudicialadmission...isnot X conclusiveontheissueadmitted.Butitisevidence. Id.at1455.GraceUnited J itselfcalledBishopBrownviahisdepositionforthepurposeofbolsteringits < claimthatthedaycarecenterwasanimportantministryoftheMethodistChurch. !. Attheminimum,therefore,theCitywasentitledtoimpeachthattestimonywith # theBishop spriorinconsistentstatements.ItisalsoimportanttonotetheBishop w%!" testifiedthattheopinionscontainedinhisletterwereaccurateatthetimethe i'#$ letterwasdrafted.Aplt.App.,vol.IVat1804.Hence,theadmissionoftheletter [)$& wasatmostcumulativetotheopiniontestimonyofferedbyGraceUnited.For M+&( theaforementionedreasons,weconcludetheBishop sstatementsassertingthat e thedaycarecenterappearedtobemoreofacommercialventureandlessofa W religiousfunctionwerenotinadmissiblehearsay. I GraceUnitedfurthercontendsthatifBishopBrownisarepresentativeof ;
andauthorizedtospeakfortheChurchforpurposesofRule801(d)(2),the -
statementsinhisletterconstituteprotectedworkproduct.However,anywork
productobjectionwaswaivedbyGraceUnitedviaproduction.See,e.g.,
Simmons,Inc.v.Bombardier,Inc.,221F.R.D.4,8(D.D.C.2004)( The
work-productprivilegemaybewaivedbythevoluntaryreleaseofmaterials otherwiseprotectedbyit. );seealsoFrontierRefining,Inc.v.GormanRuppCo., Inc.,136F.3d695,704(10thCir.1998)( [A]litigantcannotusethework t productdoctrineasbothaswordandshieldbyselectivelyusingtheprivileged f documentstoproveapointbuttheninvokingtheprivilegetopreventanopponent X fromchallengingtheassertion. ).Moreover,workproductprotectiononly J appliestoattorneys orlegalrepresentatives mentalimpressions,conclusions, < opinions,orlegaltheoriesauthoredinanticipationoflitigation.Fed.R.Civ.P. !. 26(b)(3);Hickmanv.Taylor,329U.S.495,510-11(1947);seealsoResolution # TrustCorp.v.Dabney,73F.3d262,266(10thCir.1995)( Thepartyassertinga w%!" workproductprivilegeasabartodiscoverymustprovethedoctrineisapplicable. i'#$ ...Amereallegationthattheworkproductdoctrineappliesisinsufficient. ). [)$& # @m c @mQ # TheBishop sletterwasdraftedmorethanayearpriortotheinitiationofthe M+&( instantlitigationbyanindividualwhoinsiststhathehadnoroleinthedecision e toproceedwiththislitigation. W Ontheotherhand,wedisagreewiththeCity scontentionthattheBishop s I opinionsregardingwhatconstitutesacompellingstateinterestunderRLUIPAare ;
admissibleunderRule701. }
] # 13
׀ItisuncontrovertedthatBishopBrownhasnolegal -
trainingorexpertise.Consequentially,heisentirelyunqualifiedtopontificateon
legalquestions,andstatementshemadetothateffectconstituteirrelevanthearsay
and,thus,wereinappropriatelyadmittedintoevidence.Thedistrictcourt s
erroneousadmissionoftheBishop slegalopinions,however,washarmless.As explainedintheprecedingsection,thejurydidnotreachthequestionwhetherthe City spurposeinenactingandenforcingthezoningordinanceconstituteda t compellingstateinterestbecauseitfoundthattheproposeddaycarecenterwas f notasincereexerciseofreligion.Sincethejuryneverreachedtheissueonwhich X BishopBrownopined,theerrorcouldnothavealteredtheoutcomeofthe J proceedingsorotherwiseaffectedthesubstantialrightsofGraceUnited.Frontier < RefiningInc.v.GormanRuppCo.,Inc.,136F.3d695,705(10thCir.1998) !. (holdingthattrialcourt sdecisiontoadmitevidenceshouldonlybeoverturnedif # itaffectedthesubstantialrightsoftheparties ). w%!" @ * V [)$& @
AdmissibilityofVariousOtherContestedEvidentiaryItems X% X @m Ԉ e # @m X X% # AlongwiththeBishopBrown sletter,theChurchalsoobjectedtoseveral W exhibitsthedistrictcourtdeemedadmissible,including(1)petitionsallegedly I signedbypersonsclaimingtobeneighborsofGraceUnitedandobjectingtothe ;
daycarecenter,aplt.app.,vol.VIat2546;(2)astaffreportallegedlypreparedby -
employeesoftheCity,id.at2520;(3)theminutesfromaneighborhoodmeeting
hostedbyGraceUnited,id.at2552;and(4)statementsmadeopposingthe
daycarecenterincommunitymeetings,id.,vol.Vat203032.Becausethe
RLUIPAclaimraisedissuesconcerningboththeChurch sreligiousbeliefsas wellastheCity ssecularmotives,thedistrictcourtruledthattheabove enumeratedexhibitswererelevantandadmissible.Whentheissueofwhetherto t grantanewtrial hingesontheadmissibilityofevidence, wereviewthe f admissionoftheevidenceforabuseofdiscretion. Minshallv.McGrawHill X Broad.Co.,Inc.,323F.3d1273,1283(10thCir.2003)(quotingSanjuan,160 J F.3dat1296). < TheCityadvancesseveraltheoriestosupporttheadmissionofthese !. documents.First,itcontendsthedocumentswererelevantevidenceofthe # motivesoftheCityinadoptingandenforcingitszoningordinance.Italso w%!" maintainsthathadtheChurchsuccessfullyestablishedtheCity szoning i'#$ ordinancesubstantiallyinfringedonitssincerelyheldreligiousbeliefs,the [)$& exhibitswouldhavebeenprobativeastowhethertheCityhadacompelling M+&( governmentalinterestintheenactmentandenforcementofitslanduse e regulations.Finally,theCitysubmitsthatthestaffreport,minutes,andpetitions W werepartoftheofficialrecordoftheCityand,assuch,fallintothebusiness I recordsexceptionstothehearsayrulepursuanttoRule803(8). ;
Weneednotaddressthesecontentionsbecauseeveniftheexhibitsare - inadmissible,thedistrictcourt sdecisiontoenterthemintoevidencewas
harmless.Thedispositiveissueforthejuryinthiscasewaswhetherthedaycare
centerconstitutedasincereexerciseoftheChurch sreligiousbeliefs.Grace
Uniteddoesnotevenallegethatthedocumentsatissueinanywayundermined itsclaimthatthedaycareoperationwasasincereexerciseofreligion.Indeed,it strugglestoexplainexactlyhowitwasprejudicedbytheintroductioninto t evidenceoftheseparticularexhibits.Inaconclusoryfashion,GraceUnited f allegesnothingmorethantheadmissionoftheseitems wasclearlyprejudicial, X [becausethey]portrayedAppelleesinthe bestlight, andGraceUnited J MethodistChurchinthe worstlight asgoingagainstthedesiresofthemajority < oftheneighbors. Aplt.Rep.Br.at29.Aspreviouslyemphasized,even !. evidence admittedinerrorcanonlybeprejudicialifitcanbereasonably # concludedthat...withoutsuchevidence,therewouldhavebeenacontrary w%!" result. X% X @m Ԁ# @m X X% # Sanjuan,160F.3dat1296.BecauseGraceUnitedhasprovideduswith i'#$ nobasisforreasonablyconcludingthatthejury @m @m wouldhavereachedacontrary [)$& resulthadtheobjectedtoexhibitsnotbeenadmittedbythedistrictcourt,# @m @mu # any M+&( errorinadmittingthemwasharmless. e @ kk) VI I @
MountviewParkHomeowners AssociationandRestrictiveCovenants ;
Rule24(a)(2)Intervention
@m @m
GraceUnitedcontendsthatthedistrictcourterredinpermittingMountview Homeowner sAssociationtointerveneandraisetheapplicabilityofthe
restrictivecovenants.GraceUniteddoesnotclaimthedistrictcourterredinits applicationandanalysisoftheRule24(a)(2)factorswhenitgrantedMountview permissiontointerveneasamatterofright._
] # 14
_ ԀInstead,theChurcharguesthat t Mountviewhadnostandingtointerveneandthatthedistrictcourtlacked f jurisdictionoverMountview sinterventionclaim.Wethereforelimitour X interventiondiscussiontothesetwoissues. J
Standing !. GraceUnitedmaintainsMountviewhasnorightsunderthecovenantsand e thereforenostandingtointerveneinthisaction.AccordingtotheChurch,the W associationlacksstandingtoenforcethecovenantsbecauseitneitherhas I enforcementrightspursuanttooriginalcovenantdocumentsnorisitadirect ;
successortotheinterestsofapartytothecovenant.Wearenotconvinced. -
SupremeCourtauthoritymakesclear
8
thatanassociationhasstandingtobringsuitonbehalfofits memberswhen:(a)itsmemberswouldotherwisehavestandingto
sueintheirownright;(b)theinterestsitseekstoprotectare
germanetotheorganization spurpose;and(c)neithertheclaim assertednorthereliefrequestedrequirestheparticipationof individualmembersinthelawsuit. ` b Huntv.WashingtonStateAppleAdver.Comm n,432U.S.333,343(1977). { Mountviewsatisfiestheseconditions. m First,thereisnoquestionthattheindividualmembersoftheassociation _ havestandingintheirownrighttosuetoenforcethecovenants.Wyomingtreats Q restrictivecovenantsascontractualinnature,andtheyaretobeinterpretedin C accordancewiththeprinciplesofcontractlaw. Andersonv.Bommer,926P.2d 5 959,961(Wyo.1996).AstheWyomingSupremeCourthasexplained: ifthe "' covenantrunswiththeland,itbindstheownerwhetherornothehadknowledge ~$ ! ofit,whereasifitdoesnotrunwiththeland,theownerisboundonlyifhehas p& "# takenthelandwithnoticeofit. Streetsv.JMLand&DevelopingCo.,898P.2d b(#% 377,379(Wyo.1995)(citationomitted).Thecovenantsgoverningthe T*%' MountviewParkAdditionwerefiledinJune1952anddeclarethatthey runwith F,') theland, andarebindingonallpartiestothecovenants, theirheirs,successors, e personalrepresentatives,granteesandassigns,andallpersonsclaimingunder W them. Aplt.App.vol.VI,at257172.Thecovenantsalsodirectthatifany I ownerofrealpropertywithinthedevelopmentviolatesorattemptstoviolatethe ;
covenants, itshallbelawfulforanyotherpersonorpersonsowninganyreal -
propertysituatedinsaiddevelopmentorsubdivisiontoprosecuteanyproceedings
atlaworinequityagainstthepersonsviolatingorattemptingtoviolate...any
ofthe...covenants. Id.at257273(emphasisadded).Hence,thecovenants
arespecificallyenforceablebyanyrecordownerofrealpropertysituatedinthe development,seeAnderson,926P.2dat962( Asageneralrule,arestrictive covenantmaybeenforcedbyone[for]whosebenefititwasmade. ),againstany t otherrecordownerofrealpropertysituatedinthedevelopment,evenifthat f recordownerobtainedlegaltitletoitspropertywithoutactualnoticeofthe X restrictions.Theindividualmembersoftheassociationthushavestandingto J seekanenforcementofthecovenantrestrictions. < NorhasanycontestbeenraisedastotheremainingHuntrequirements. !. Mountviewwascreatedforthepurposeofprotectingthecovenantrightsofthose # wholiveinthesubdivision,andtheassociationsoughttoprotectthoserightsin w%!" theinstantsuit.Moreover,adeterminationregardingwhethertheChurch s i'#$ proposeddaycarecenterwouldviolatetherestrictivecovenantsdidnotmandate [)$& participationoftheindividualmembersinthesuit.Noindividualizedproofwas M+&( j O:
j ee
j
requiredtoaddressMountview srequestforadeclarationthatadaycarecenter e wouldruncountertotherestrictivecovenants.Theissuetherefore,couldbe W properlyresolvedinagroupcontext. Hunt,432U.S.at344.Insum, I Mountviewhadstandingtointerveneinthislawsuit.# @m @ml # c @m @m ;
Jurisdiction
GraceUnitedalsoassertsthedistrictcourterredinpermittingMountview tointervenebecausethecourtlackedjurisdictionovertheassociation srestrictive
covenantclaim,astatelawissue.Inmakingthisargument,theChurchrelieson languagefromUnitedStatesv.Martin,267F.2d764(10thCir.1959),andBantel v.McGrath,215F.2d297(10thCir.1954).Neithercaseprovidessupportforthe t Church sposition. f InMartin,thiscourtnotedthatthemotiontointervenethereclaimedboth X permissiveinterventionandinterventionasamatterofright.267F.2dat76869. J Wethensaidthatacounterclaim maybepermissivelyjoinedif[itandthemain < action]presentcommonquestionsoflawandfact,providedofcoursethe !. counterclaimrestsuponitsownjurisdictionalfooting. Id.at769(emphasis # added).InBantel,ontheotherhand,thiscourtheldthatinterventionasamatter w%!" ofrightwasinappropriatebecausethepartiesseekingtointervenehaddoneso i'#$ aftertheconflictatissueintheunderlyingactionhadbecomemoot.215F.2dat [)$& 299.Alternatively,weheldinterventionimproperbecause Rule24(a)...does M+&( notgranttherightofinterventiontotryanissueoutsidetheauthorizedscopeof e [thestatutory]proceedings,foritwasnotintendedtoenlargeuponthe W jurisdictionofthecourt. Id.at299.However,theunderlyinglawsuitwasan I actionbytheAttorneyGeneraloftheUnitedStatesagainstabanktoenforcean ;
administrativeorderundertheTradingwiththeEnemyAct,whichhadvestedin -
theUnitedStatespropertybelongingtoGermannationals.Wesaidthattheissue
theintervenorswereattemptingtoraise,namely,thevalidityoftheunderlying
vestingorder,wasnotwithinthescopeoftheenforcementproceedinginwhich
thedeterminationthatthepropertyisenemyowedisconclusive,eventhough erroneous. Id. GraceUnitedreliesonthequotedlanguagefromMartinandBantel t regardinglackofjurisdictiontocontendthatinterventionshouldbelimitedto f thosecontroversiesinwhichthedistrictcourtpossessesindependentjurisdiction X overboththeunderlyingclaimandtheclaimsraisedbytheintervenor.The J Church sjurisdictionalargumentmissesthemark. < First,sinceMartinandBantelweredecided,statutoryjurisdictionalrules !. wereenactedexpresslyprovidingacourtmayexercisesupplementaljurisdiction # overinterventionclaimsthataresufficientlyrelatedtothemainclaimoverwhich w%!" thecourthasfederalquestionjurisdiction.28U.S.C.1367(a).
] # 15
׀Thus,section i'#$ 1367(a)provides: e 8
thedistrictcourtsshallhavesupplementaljurisdictionoverallother W claimsthataresorelatedtoclaimsintheactionwithinsuchoriginal P jurisdictionthattheyformpartofthesamecaseorcontroversyunder I ArticleIIIoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.Suchsupplemental B jurisdictionshallincludeclaimsthatinvolvethejoinderor ;
interventionofadditionalparties. 4 Id.(emphasisadded).InKelleyv.Michaels,59F.3d1055(10thCir.1995),we &
describedtheimportof1367(a)asfollows:
8
CongressincludedintheJudicialImprovementsActof1990a
provision,28U.S.C.1367,clarifyingandcodifyingthefederal
courts supplementaljurisdiction.Theimpetus,inpart,wasa recognitionthatrecentSupremeCourtdecisionshadcastdoubton theauthorityoffederalcourtstohearsomeclaimswithin supplementaljurisdiction.SeeH.R.Rep.No.101734,101stCong., 2dSess.28,reprintedin1990U.S.C.C.A.N.687376;seealsoFinley { v.UnitedStates,490U.S.545,109S.Ct.2003,104L.Ed.2d593 t (1989)(denyingjurisdictionbyaplaintiffagainstadditional, m nondiversedefendantoveraclaimrelatedtotheunderlyingfederal f action)....Section1367intendedtosupplanttherelatedand _ somewhatoverlappingconceptsofancillaryandpendentjurisdiction, X principallyreinstatingpreFinleycaselawwithsomeadditional Q clarification.H.R.Rep.No.101734,supraat2829.Thelegislative J historyindicatesthat [i]nfederalquestioncases,[1367]broadly C authorizesthedistrictcourtstoexercisesupplementaljurisdiction < overadditionalclaims,includingclaimsinvolvingthejoinderof 5 additionalparties. Id.at28. !. Ѐ # @m c @mq # c @m @m Id.at1058(emphasisadded).SeealsoJamesWm.Mooreetal.,6Moore s # FederalPractice24.22[1],at2482(3ded.2005)( Thefederal w%!" supplementaljurisdictionstatute...codifiedthejudicialdoctrinesofpendent e andancillaryjurisdiction. );# @m c @m' # c @m @m Ԁ# @m c @m # c @m @m DavidD.Siegel,PracticeCommentary,reprintedin W 28U.S.C.A.1367,at82931(West1993)(discussingdoctrinesofpendentand I ancillaryjurisdiction). ;
# @m c @m
# c @m @m
Priortotheadoptionof1367,commentaryandcaselawregarding - supplementaljurisdictionmadeclearthatwhenapartywasentitledtointervene
asamatterofright,thecourthadpendentjurisdictionovertheintervenor sclaim
andnoindependentjurisdictionalbasiswasrequired.See,e.g.,OwenEquip.&
ErectionCo.v.Kroger,437U.S.365,375n.18(1978);Int lPaperCo.v. InhabitantsoftheTownofJay,Maine,887F.2d338,346(1stCir.1989);Curtis v.Sears,Roebuck&Co.,754F.2d781,783(8thCir.1985);7CCharlesAlan t Wrightetal.,FederalPractice&Procedure1917,at464(2ded.1986). f Conversely,aswesaidinMartin,permissiveinterventiondidrequirethatthe X districtcourtpossessindependentjurisdictionovertheintervenor sclaim. J Wrightetal.,supra,at46465;SecurityIns.Co.ofHartfordv.Schipporeit, < Inc.,69F.3d1377,1381(7thCir.1995);Greenev.UnitedStates,996F.2d973, !. 978(9thCir.1993);Int lPaperCo.,887F.2dat346;MooseheadSanitaryDist. # v.S.G.PhillipsCorp.,610F.2d49,52n.5(1stCir.1979). w%!" Here,thedistrictcourtpermittedMountviewtointerveneasamatterof i'#$
rightunderRule24(a)(2).Thus,noindependentjurisdictionalbasisfor [)$& Mountview sinterventionwasrequired.
] # 16
׀Under28U.S.C.1367(a),thedistrict e
courtproperlyexercisedjurisdictionoverMountview srestrictivecovenantclaim. W
Applicabilityofthe_ Covenants _ ;
8 c @mc d c X X d 8
Finally,wearenotpersuadedbyGraceUnited scontentionsonthemerits - thattherestrictivecovenantsdonotapplytoitandthatthedistrictcourterredby
submittingtothejurythequestionofwhethertheChurch sproposeddaycare
centerviolatedthetermsofthecovenants.
GraceUnitedisboundbythecovenants.Initsattempttoargueotherwise onappeal,itpointsoutthatitisnotlocatedona lot, whichisthereference mostofthecovenantsuse,butratherislocatedonablock. t
] # 17
׀Itassertsthatthe t covenantsonlyplacerestrictionsonlotuse,withoutgivinganyindicationasto f howpropertyonablockmustbeutilized.Forexample,# @m c @m, # @m @m @m @m ParagraphAofthe X covenantsstatesthatalllotsintheneighborhoodshallbeforsinglefamily J residentialdwellings.SeeAplt.App.,vol.IIat590.# @m @m # # @m @m # c @m @m GraceUnitedarguesthatits < blockisnotsubjecttoanyrestrictionsregardinghowtheChurchpropertylocated !. thereonmightbeused. e
TheChurchiswrong.WhileParagraphAofthecovenantsdictatesthatall W lotsintheneighborhoodshallbeusedforresidentialpurposes,ParagraphE I placesadditionaluserestrictionsonalllandinthesubdivisionwhetherthatland ;
isdescribedasalotorblock.Itdirectsthat [n]onoxiousoroffensivetradeor -
activityshallbecarriedonuponanylotorblocknorshallanythingbedone
thereonwhichmaybeorbecomeanannoyanceornuisancetotheneighborhood.
Aplt.App.,vol.IIat591(emphasisadded).TheChurchisthusclearlybarred
fromengaginginanyactivitythatcouldbecomeanuisancetotheneighborhood. Whethertheproposeddaycarecenterwouldconstituteanuisancewas clearlyafactquestionforthejurytodecide.Thejurywasinstructedasfollows: t 8 ` TheDefendant/IntervenorMountviewParkHomeowners f Associationhastheburdenofprooftoprovethatrestrictive _ covenantsrestricttheplaintiff suseofitspropertyandthatthe X plaintiff sproposedchildcareordaycarecenterviolatesrestrictive Q covenantsontheproperty. J 8 ` ... C 8 ` Itisforyoutodeterminewhethertheplaintiffisboundby < restrictivecovenantsandwhethersuchcovenantswouldbeviolated 5 bytheplaintiff soperationofthechildcareordaycarecenter. !. 8 ` You reinstructedthatanuisanceisaclassofwrongwhich "' arisesfromanunreasonable,unwarrantedorunlawfulusebya # personofhisownproperty,workingobstructionorinjurytotheright ~$ ! ofanother. w%!" App.App.,vol.Vat226364.Thejurywasalsogivenaspecialverdictformon i'#$ whichitwasrequiredtoanswerthefollowingquestion: Doyoufindbya [)$& preponderanceoftheevidencethatGraceUnitedMethodistChurch sproposed M+&( childcareordaycarecenterviolatesthecovenantsapplicabletothatblockof e property,fifthfiling,block12. Id.at2275.Thejuryansweredthisquestionin W theaffirmative.Id. I Thejury sfindingsaresupportedbytheevidence.InlightofParagraphE ;
ofthecovenants,whichbarredanyactivity_ _ _ which_ Ԁmaybeorbecomean -
annoyanceornuisancetotheneighborhood, id.,vol.IIat591,thejurywas
instructedthat anuisanceisaclassofwrongwhicharisesfromanunreasonable,
unwarrantedorunlawfulusebyapersonofhisownproperty,working
obstructionorinjurytotherightofanother. Id.,vol.Vat2264(emphasis added).ThisinstructionwasincompleteaccordwithWyominglaw.See,e.g., Brownv.Johnston,85P.3d422,430(Wyo.2004)( Wehavedefinednuisanceas t aclassofwrongswhicharisefromanunreasonable,unwarranted,orunlawfuluse f byapersonofhisownproperty,workinganobstructionorinjurytotherightof X another. )(internalquotationsandcitationomitted);Edgcombv.LowerValley J Power&Light,Inc.,922P.2d850,859(Wyo.1996)(same);Heinv.Lee,549 < P.2d286,291(Wyo.1976)(same).Thejury sconclusioninregardtothe !. Church sRLUIPAclaim,seeGraceUnitedMethodistChurch,427F.3dat797 # n.10,wasthatGraceUnited sproposedoperationofthedaycarecenterwasnota w%!" sincereexerciseofitsreligion.Theevidencesupportedtheconclusionthatitwas i'#$ instead,asassertedbytheCityandMountview,acommercialactivitybarredby [)$& thespecificzoningrestrictionsfortheneighborhood.BecausetheChurch s M+&( proposeddaycarewouldhavebeenunlawfulundertheCity szoningrestrictions, e thejurycouldreasonablyconcludeitwouldconstituteanuisanceinaccordance W withtheinstructionsprovidedtoitbythecourt. I @ ==) VII - # @m c @m # c @m @m Fortheforegoingreasons,wegrantinpartGraceUnited spetitionfor
rehearingand
AFFIRM .GraceUnited spetitionforrehearingenbancwas circulatedtoallthecircuitjudgesofthecourtinregularactiveservice.Nojudge
hasrequestedapoll,andthesuggestionforrehearingenbancisthereforedenied.# @m c @mc #
FindLaw Career Center
- Search for Law Jobs:
Ads by FindLaw