Village of Euclid v. Ambler
Realty Co. case brief summary
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
272 U.S. 365
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellee
landowner filed suit against appellants, a municipal corporation and
its building inspector, seeking to enjoin them from enforcing a
comprehensive zoning ordinance, asserting that it violated his
Fourteenth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio held that the ordinance was
unconstitutional and void, and enjoined its enforcement. The
municipal corporation and its inspector sought review.
FACTS: The landowner asserted that because of the building restrictions imposed, the ordinance operated to reduce the normal value of his property, and to deprive him of liberty and property without due process of law. The municipal corporation and building inspector argued that the ordinance passed constitutional muster and should have been enforced.
HOLDING:
The court held that the district court clearly had equitable jurisdiction over the matter and further held that the ordinance, in its general scope and dominant features, was a valid exercise of authority.
ANALYSIS:
The landowner's property had not suffered or been threatened with an injury that entitled him to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance. The restrictions imposed bore a rational relation to the health and safety of the community.
CONCLUSION: The decree enjoining enforcement of the ordinance was reversed.
FACTS: The landowner asserted that because of the building restrictions imposed, the ordinance operated to reduce the normal value of his property, and to deprive him of liberty and property without due process of law. The municipal corporation and building inspector argued that the ordinance passed constitutional muster and should have been enforced.
HOLDING:
The court held that the district court clearly had equitable jurisdiction over the matter and further held that the ordinance, in its general scope and dominant features, was a valid exercise of authority.
ANALYSIS:
The landowner's property had not suffered or been threatened with an injury that entitled him to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance. The restrictions imposed bore a rational relation to the health and safety of the community.
CONCLUSION: The decree enjoining enforcement of the ordinance was reversed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment