Alice Guth v. Tazewell County, 698 F.3d 580

Plaintiff sues the County Board under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional rights violations; district court granted summary judgment for the Board.
Plaintiff owns five parcels (A–D and an adjacent house parcel) near Peoria, Illinois; A–D were agricultural and near hog farms.
The Board denied rezoning requests for A, then for B and C; later, via an Agreed Order entered by the Board's Risk Management Committee, parcels A–D were to be rezoned rural residential.
The Agreed Order could not itself rezone; rezoning required compliance with county procedures including Zoning Board hearings and a three-fourths County Board vote.
In 2007 the Board denied rezoning; in 2008 it granted the rezoning after a hearing, but market decline left the parcels with little to no residential value gain.
Plaintiff contends the 2007 denial was discriminatory in favor of nearby parcels and was retaliatory for her state court suit; the court addresses both and also damages causation under loss-of-value theories.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Equal protection class-of-one claim viability	Olech-style claim; Board favored nearby parcels.	Board acted on legitimate agricultural/land-use concerns.	Insufficient evidence of selective treatment for a class-of-one.
Retaliation for state court suit	Denial was retaliatory for the suit.	Motive not proven; board voiced agricultural protections.	No proven retaliation; majority voted for reasons other than retaliation.
Damages and causation for delays	Delay harmed value; damages for lost value if rezoning had occurred earlier.	Loss due to housing market collapse; not caused by Board.	Board not liable for downturns unrelated to its conduct; causation not established.
Authority and process for rezoning	Agreed Order bound Board to rezone, violating procedures.	Only the Board could rezone; committee actions insufficient to bind full Board.	Agreed Order did not bind the Board to rezone; proper procedure required.

Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (equal protection class-of-one requires showing of selective treatment by government.)
Hilton v. City of Wheeling, 209 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2000) (class-of-one and retaliatory actions considerations in zoning/land-use cases.)
Del Marcelle v. Brown County Corp., 680 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc; retaliation and procedural due process considerations in local government actions.)
Batagiannis v. West Lafayette Community School Corp., 454 F.3d 738 (7th Cir. 2006) (First Amendment petition rights in the context of retaliation claims.)
Woodruff v. Mason, 542 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2008) (concurrence addressing retaliation and public-rights aspects in local-government actions.)
Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461 (7th Cir. 1988) (due process and takings-like considerations in zoning decisions.)
Movitz v. First National Bank, 148 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 1998) (distinction between transaction causation and loss causation for damages.)
Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough, 43 Atl. 240 (Pa. 1899) (illustrates but-for causation vs. loss causation concept in damages.)