Procedural compliance alone does not immunize a zoning decision from judicial review

Evidence

On appeal, the city raises two contentions of error. The second is that the city strictly complied with the procedural requirements of the state enabling statute—Chapter 89 R.S. Mo. 1986—and therefore the refusal to rezone cannot be unreasonable. That is a non sequitur. Such a conclusion would render court review of zoning decisions illusory and nonexistent. A court would be restricted to examination only if the procedure followed and would be unable to set aside zoning determinations no matter how arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or confiscatory if the statutory procedures were followed. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1152

Categorization

• DEFINE: Illustrates a non sequitur — reasoning where a conclusion does not follow from its premises — in a concrete legal context.
• XREF: Connects to the broader doctrine of judicial review of administrative decisions, where substantive rationality review survives procedural regularity. — connects to: Deference to agencies must not abdicate judicial review over policy decisions — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1234
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1152

Broader Connections

• Deference to agencies must not abdicate judicial review over policy decisions #corroborates (0.62) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1234