Alta v. Ben Hame Corp.–Mistakenly-issued approvals do not bind a local zoning authority.
Berman .v. Parker–-Land use may be regulated for aesthetic purposes.
Dairy Products Services, Inc. v. Wellsville—Cities have general welfare authority to regulate land use to benefit the public.
Davis County v. Clearfield City–Denial of conditional use permit must be based on concrete, factual evidence.
Harmon City v. Draper City–Distinction between legislative and administrative functions.
Hatch v. Boulder Town–Authority to enact zoning ordinances.
Salt Lake County v. Kartchner–Estoppel, waiver, or laches generally not available as a defense, except in exceptional circumstances.
Save Our Canyons v. Board of Adjustment of Salt Lake County–Discusses criteria for variances.
Smith Investment Co. v. Sandy City–-Validity of zoning ordinances.
Stucker v. Summit County–Mere ownership or purchase of land does not constitute a substantial change in position sufficient enough to invoke zoning estoppel.
Tooele Associates, LP v. Tooele City–Validity of inspection fees.
Uintah Mountain RTC, LLC v. Duchesne County–Decision to grant or deny a conditional use application must be based upon substantial evidence; consent of neighbors may not be a requirement for a conditional use permit.
Utah County v. Baxter–Zoning estoppel only available in extraordinary circumstances.
Utah County v. Young–When “zoning estoppel” may be established.
Vial v. Provo City–Rebutting a presumption of abandonment of a nonconforming use.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty–Land uses may be regulated to promote public welfare.
Wadsworth v. West Jordan City–Denial of conditional use permit may not be based solely on adverse public comments, but must be based on substantial evidence.
Wells v. Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment–All required criteria must be met for a zoning variance
Xanthos v. Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment–Zoning authorities given wide latitude of discretion. Equitable defenses for zoning ordinance only available in exceptional circumstances.