MARTIN

v.

OHIO

Citator

Cited By

• Dep't OF Transp. v. Weisenfeld, 617 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
  …rded by that same statute. “A court cannot determine whether a regulation has gone too far unless it knows how far the regulation goes.” MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 348, 106 S.Ct. 2561, 2566, 91 L.Ed.2d 285, reh. denied, 478 U.S. 1035, 107 S.Ct. 22, 92 L.Ed.2d 773 (1986). As explained by the Supreme Court in Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 187-195, 105 S.Ct. at 3117-3121, the procedural steps available to a property owner to be relieved of the allegedly confiscatory effects of lan…
• City OF Riviera Beach v. Shillingburg, 659 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
  …least one “meaningful application,” the claim cannot be said to be ripe for review. Glisson, 558 So. 2d at 1030 (adopting MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340, 353 n. 8, 106 S.Ct. 2561, 2568 n. 8, 91 L.Ed.2d 285, reh’g denied, 478 U.S. 1035, 107 S.Ct. 22, 92 L.Ed.2d 773 (1986)); see also Wynn. We cannot consider Shillingburg’s application for a dock to be a meaningful application if Shil-lingburg’s actual intent was to use the prop [*1181] erty to build a residence. The factual scenari…
• United States v. Oakey, 853 F.2d 551 (7th Cir. 1988)
  …ws a defendant to address the jury, in his capacity as counsel, without being cross-examined, in his capacity as a defendant. United States v. Tucker, 773 F. 2d 136 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1022, 106 S.Ct. 3338, 92 L.Ed.2d 742 reh’g denied, 478 U.S. 1035, 107 S.Ct. 23, 92 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985). Furthermore, although a defendant has the right to proceed pro se, a request to do so must be made in a timely fashion. United States v. Smith, 780 F. 2d 810 (9th Cir.1986) (demand for self-representation must b…