Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

MOUNT HOLLY, NJ v. MT. HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS

Docket No.: 11-1507
Argued: December 4, 2013

PartyNames: Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey, et al. v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al.
Petitioner: Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey, et al.
Respondent: Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Citation: 658 F.3d 375
Supreme Court Docket

Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey, et al.
v.
Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al.
Consideration Limited:

LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.

Question Presented:

1. Are disparate impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act? 2. If such claims are cognizable, should they be analyzed under the burden shifting approach used by three circuits, under the balancing test used by four circuits, under a hybrid approach used by two circuits, or by some other test? (a) What is the correct test for determining whether a prima facie case of disparate impact has been made? (b) How should statistical evidence be evaluated? (c) What is the correct test for determining when a Defendant has satisfied its burden in a disparate impact case?

MOUNT HOLLY, NJ v. MT. HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS
ORAL ARGUMENT

December 4, 2013

Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)