Thank you. You told me what I needed to know.
Cat cafes are a recent phenomenon that originated in Japan. However recreations of this in USA have proven problematic, because many US jurisdictions simply do not know how to deal with this from a legal point of liability, zoning, etc. So it is a bit of a mess.
Now this is basically a zoning issue
. However, the zoning law is created with no cat cafe in mind. It only thinks about kennels and non-kennels. So the language is frankly - unclear.
What can one do? One has to administratively appeal the zoning board's decision
(that is with the city), and then once the administrative appeal comes to an end, one can file a Writ of Mandamus
to have the Court review the decision and possibly reverse it.
Because the zoning law is unclear, the Court would look at this from point of view of INTENT:There is one building-block principle this Court has declared repeatedly and emphatically: the "surest guide" to what lawmakers intended is what lawmakers enacted. We are interpreting words, and where those words are not doubtful, even though their wisdom may be, we are bound to honor them. Accordingly, since intent is driven by text, we must not accept the peculiar view that construing the Act's definition of "general contractor" by its terms would subvert legislative intent. Indeed, it is displacing the concreteness of what was actually said with the conjecture of what was allegedly meant that invites activism, a mischievous way for courts to put a finger on the scale (or in the wind) and thus substitute judicial intent for legislative intent. Our place in the constitutional architecture requires fidelity to what lawmakers actually passed.
Consequently, we must focus on what a statute says and, just as attentively, on what it does not say, taking care to honor substantive changes, both additions and deletions, made over the years, and always presuming that the Legislature chose its language carefully. As for what the Act includes, its definition of "general contractor" is notable for two things: (1) a solitary description ("undertakes to procure the performance of work"), including a non-exhaustive list of synonyms ("`principal contractor,' `original contractor,' `prime contractor,' or other analogous term"); and (2) a solitary exclusion ("a motor carrier that provides a transportation service through the use of an owner operator"). Any entity that falls inside the former and outside the latter is shielded from tort liability if it provides workers' compensation coverage to its contractors' employees. As for what the Act excludes, we must give effect to the Legislature's deletion in 1989 of a provision ("contracted with another party") that contemplated a general contractor contracting upstream with a premises owner.Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 SW 3d 433 - Tex: Supreme Court 2009
Then, the Court decides. I am sorry to say however there is no IMMEDIATE answer. This is on a case by case basis. However, knowing above may help one understand how the Court would look at this and possibly how to argue the matter.
Please note: If I tell you simply what you wish to hear, this would be unfair to you
. I want to be honest with you and sometimes this means providing information that is not optimal. Negative ratings are reserved for experts who are rude or for erroneous information. Please rate me on the quality of my information; do not punish me for my honesty.
I hope this helps and clarifies. Gentle Reminder: Use the SEND
button to keep chatting, or please rate
when finished. You may always ask follow ups at no charge after rating. Kindly rate my answer as one of the top three faces/stars
and then SUBMIT
, as this is how I get credit for my time with you. Rating my answer the bottom two faces/stars or failing to submit the rating does not give me credit and reflects poorly on me, even if my answer is correct
. I work very hard to formulate an informative and honest answer for you; please reciprocate my good faith.