The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Subsequent to the effective date of zoning ordinance amendments, Knoll (D) placed a mobile home on their property. The amended ordinance provided that mobile homes are permitted only in approved mobile home parks or mobile home subdivisions. Ds stipulated that their mobile home was placed without a building permit, but they had dug a well, obtained a septic permit, applied for power, cleared trees and erected a fence all with County (P) approval. There was nothing to indicate that D's property could not be used to develop a mobile home park or subdivision. P sued D to remove their mobile home. D claimed that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The court of appeals agreed with D that the ordinance was unconstitutional. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.