Connection lost
Server error
Mhany Management, Inc. v. County of Nassau Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Garden City was found liable under the Fair Housing Act for rezoning land to prevent multi-family affordable housing, a decision influenced by racially motivated community opposition. The court affirmed this finding.
Legal Significance: This case affirms that municipalities can be liable for disparate treatment under the Fair Housing Act when zoning decisions knowingly respond to racially motivated citizen opposition, even if overt racial animus is absent.
Mhany Management, Inc. v. County of Nassau Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Nassau County sought to sell a 25-acre Social Services Site within Garden City, requesting rezoning to facilitate the sale. Garden City’s planning firm, BFJ, initially proposed R-M zoning, allowing up to 311 multi-family residential units, which could include affordable housing. This proposal was supported by Garden City officials, citing a demographic need for such housing. However, public hearings revealed significant citizen opposition, with concerns about changing the Village’s “character,” potential for “affordable housing,” increased traffic, and school overcrowding. References were made to avoiding the perceived negative impacts of multi-family housing seen in other communities with higher minority populations. A flyer circulated warning against affordable housing and its potential impact on property values. In response to this public pressure, Garden City abruptly abandoned the R-M proposal and, in a significantly expedited process, adopted R-T zoning, which severely restricted multi-family housing, defining “townhouse” as a “single-family dwelling unit.” This change effectively precluded the development of affordable multi-family housing. Plaintiffs, affordable housing developers, argued this shift was discriminatory.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did Garden City violate the Fair Housing Act by changing its zoning ordinance from one permitting multi-family housing (R-M) to one primarily allowing single-family townhouses (R-T) in knowing response to racially motivated citizen opposition to affordable housing?
Yes, Garden City was liable for disparate treatment under the Fair Housing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dol
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did Garden City violate the Fair Housing Act by changing its zoning ordinance from one permitting multi-family housing (R-M) to one primarily allowing single-family townhouses (R-T) in knowing response to racially motivated citizen opposition to affordable housing?
Conclusion
This case underscores that facially neutral zoning decisions can constitute disparate treatment Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis no
Legal Rule
A municipality engages in disparate treatment violative of the Fair Housing Act, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing el
Legal Analysis
The court affirmed the district court's finding of discriminatory intent based on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.