Guth v. Tazewell County

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-County officials’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights by failing to promptly re-zone plaintiff’s property pursuant to terms of settlement agreement between plaintiff and County Bd. committee. Defendants could only re-zone subject property in accordance with specific procedures that had not been met until two years after settlement had been entered, and plaintiff could not establish successful equal protection claim where proposed parcels allegedly receiving more favorable treatment were not comparable to plaintiff’s land. Moreover, plaintiff could not establish any damages stemming from any delay in re-zoning where downturn in housing market, as opposed to defendants’ conduct, was cause for any reduction in property value.