Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)

Citation: Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Parent Document: Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2010-09-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/174536/gallagher-v-magner-ex-rel-city-o... ↗

Full Text

1,303 chars

First, the Gallagher Appellants challenge the term “vacant building” in
§ 43.02(7)(e) as applied to the property at 1522/1524 Carroll Ave. The Carroll Ave.
property was allegedly declared vacant twenty-three days after the property was sold
to Appellant Troy Allison. The Gallagher Appellants complain that the DNHPI
inspector ignored the “obvious occupancy” of the home and based his vacancy
determination merely on an observation that the second-story window lacked any
blinds or window coverings. However, as the district court noted, Allison admitted
in his deposition testimony that the downstairs unit at the Carroll Ave. property was
unoccupied and had multiple Housing Code violations when the City declared it a
vacant building. The Gallagher Appellants do not challenge that finding on appeal.
As such, the Carroll Ave. property was clearly within the definition of a vacant
building. See St. Paul, Minn. Code § 43.02(7)(e) (defining a “vacant building” as “[a]
building or portion of a building which is . . . unoccupied and has multiple housing or
building code violations”). Therefore, Allison cannot complain of the vagueness of
§ 43.02(7)(e). See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 (1974) (“One to whose conduct
a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”).

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text