Knowledge (XXG)

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

Source 📝

34: 391:, zoning was a relatively new concept, and indeed there had been rumblings that it was an unreasonable intrusion into private property rights for a government to restrict how an owner might use property. The court, in holding that there was valid government interest in maintaining the character of a neighborhood and in regulating where certain land uses should occur, allowed for the subsequent explosion in zoning ordinances across the country. The court has never heard a case seeking to overturn 283:, developed a zoning ordinance based upon six classes of use, three classes of height and four classes of area. The property in question was divided into three use classes, as well as various height and area classes, thereby hindering Ambler Realty from developing the land for industry. Ambler Realty sued the village, arguing that the zoning ordinance had substantially reduced the value of the land by limiting its use, amounting to a deprivation of Ambler's liberty and property without 680: 309:
by Euclid of Ambler's property, the court stated that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The ordinance defined the use and size of buildings permissible in each district. Ambler Realty's land spanned multiple districts, and the company was therefore significantly restricted in the types of buildings
300:
In the lower court, the village moved to dismiss the complaint entirely, arguing that Ambler Realty had no right to sue in the first place without taking the issue before the Euclid Zoning Board, as required by the zoning ordinance. Euclid was basing this argument on a legal doctrine which has come
432:
plant until the 1970s. On June 9, 2016, the City of Euclid and the Euclid Landmarks Commission dedicated an Ohio Historical Marker at the Euclid Police Mini-Station on HGR Industrial Surplus’ property at 20001 Euclid Avenue, Euclid, Ohio, to formally recognize the site at the center of the U.S.
326:
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's denial of the dismissal motion, but overturned the outcome of the case and sided with the Village of Euclid. The Court held that the zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the village's police power and did not have the character of
330:
Further, the Court found that Ambler Realty had offered no evidence that the ordinance had any effect on the value of the property in question, but based their assertions of depreciation on speculation only. The court ruled that speculation was not a valid basis for a claim of takings.
441:
In recent years restrictive zoning ordinances have been blamed for rising costs in U.S. cities. Both progressive and conservative legal scholars have begun calling for Euclid v. Ambler to be overturned or severely limited under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
341:
clause. The Court noted that the challenger in a due process case would have to show that the law in question is discriminatory and has no rational basis. The Court found that Euclid's zoning ordinance in fact did have a rational basis.
310:
it could construct on the land. Thus there was no reason for the company to abide by the ordinance's requirement. Euclid's motion was denied and the lower court decided in favor of Ambler Realty. Prominent lawyer
740: 500: 798: 119:
The Court held that the zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the village's police power and did not have the character of arbitrary fiat, and thus it was not unconstitutional.
335: 221: 695: 244: 77: 368:
and asserted for the public welfare. Benefit for the public welfare must be determined in connection with the circumstances, the conditions and the locality of the case.
365: 256: 550: 581: 452: 279:. The village, in an attempt to prevent industrial Cleveland from growing into and subsuming Euclid and prevent the growth of industry which might change 793: 684: 803: 788: 666: 808: 612: 306: 241: 38: 818: 361:
brief on behalf of Euclid, arguing that zoning is a form of nuisance control and therefore a reasonable police power measure.
354: 404: 382: 364:
In short the court ruled that zoning ordinances, regulations and laws must find their justification in some aspect of
260: 421: 589: 142: 350: 567: 661:
Wolfe, Michael Allan (2008). The Zoning of America: Euclid v. Ambler. Lawrence, University Press of Kansas.
280: 174: 724: 302: 154: 813: 699: 632: 69: 315: 178: 358: 150: 134: 399:, is the largest unzoned city in the United States, although it uses deed restrictions instead. 412:, the Court overturned a zoning ordinance for violating the 14th Amendment due process clause. 662: 616: 166: 706: 305:. The court denied this motion. Finding that the zoning ordinance did in fact constitute a 247:
argued in 1926. It was the first significant case regarding the relatively new practice of
645: 311: 276: 252: 186: 395:. Today most local governments in the United States have zoning ordinances. The city of 715: 396: 346: 162: 782: 732: 525: 456: 425: 272: 72: 476:"Village of Euclid v. Ambler Reality Co. - The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History" 475: 429: 338: 284: 582:"The hottest trend in U.S. cities? Changing zoning rules to allow more housing" 679: 109:
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
88: 756: 742: 271:
Ambler Realty owned 68 acres (0.28 km) of land in the village of
248: 92: 84: 733:
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. Case Brief by 4 Law School
16:
1926 United States Supreme Court case that permitted city zoning
33: 568:"Historical marker erected to dedicate landmark zoning case" 203:
Sutherland, joined by Taft, Holmes, Brandeis, Sanford, Stone
420:
The Ambler tract remained undeveloped for 20 years until
334:
Ambler Realty had argued their case on the basis of the
59:
Village of Euclid, Ohio, et al. v. Ambler Realty Company
327:
arbitrary fiat, and thus it was not unconstitutional.
613:"The Constitutional Case Against Exclusionary Zoning" 402:
Less than two years later, the Supreme Court decided
799:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Taft Court
526:"Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. Case Brief" 215: 207: 199: 194: 123: 113: 105: 100: 64: 54: 45: 26: 611:Braver, Joshua; Somin, Ilya (February 18, 2024). 570:. HGR Industrial Surplus. Retrieved 2016-07-06. 234:, 272 U.S. 365 (1926), more commonly known as 8: 768:Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. 551:"FOCUS: Houston; A Fresh Approach To Zoning" 383:Zoning in the United States § Euclidean 453:Grape Bay Ltd v Attorney-General of Bermuda 685:Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company 23: 303:the exhaustion of administrative remedies 692:Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. 501:"Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co" 467: 641: 630: 314:argued the case for Ambler Realty and 231:Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. 27:Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. 424:built an aircraft plant there during 21:1926 United States Supreme Court case 7: 255:zoning was a valid exercise of the 251:. The Supreme Court's finding that 39:Supreme Court of the United States 14: 794:United States Supreme Court cases 702:365 (1926) is available from: 480:Encyclopedia of Cleveland History 678: 353:(now APA-Ohio, a chapter of the 263:and influenced other countries. 211:Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler 32: 804:United States land use case law 789:1926 in United States case law 1: 355:American Planning Association 281:the character of the village 809:Zoning in the United States 405:Nectow v. City of Cambridge 261:zoning in the United States 242:United States Supreme Court 835: 505:Casebriefs by BloombergLaw 380: 91:8; 4 Ohio L. Abs. 816; 54 220: 128: 118: 50:Decided November 22, 1926 48:Reargued October 12, 1926 31: 351:Ohio Planning Conference 819:Takings Clause case law 557:. Retrieved 2009-03-27. 46:Argued January 27, 1926 640:Cite journal requires 222:U.S. Const. amend. XIV 757:41.565711°N 81.5426°W 381:Further information: 619:on February 22, 2024 592:on February 21, 2024 433:Supreme Court case. 318:represented Euclid. 143:Oliver W. Holmes Jr. 762:41.565711; -81.5426 752: /  725:Library of Congress 359:friend of the court 349:, supported by the 345:Planner and lawyer 322:U. S. Supreme Court 155:James C. McReynolds 151:Willis Van Devanter 549:Reinhold, Robert. 139:Associate Justices 83:47 S. Ct. 114; 71 683:Works related to 667:978-0-7006-1621-3 580:Wamsley, Laurel. 227: 226: 179:Edward T. Sanford 167:George Sutherland 826: 776: 775: 773: 772: 771: 769: 764: 763: 758: 753: 750: 749: 748: 745: 729: 723: 720: 714: 711: 705: 682: 650: 649: 643: 638: 636: 628: 626: 624: 615:. Archived from 608: 602: 601: 599: 597: 588:. Archived from 577: 571: 564: 558: 547: 541: 540: 538: 536: 522: 516: 515: 513: 511: 497: 491: 490: 488: 486: 472: 377:Zoning precedent 336:14th Amendment's 316:James Metzenbaum 237:Euclid v. Ambler 124:Court membership 36: 35: 24: 834: 833: 829: 828: 827: 825: 824: 823: 779: 778: 767: 765: 761: 759: 755: 754: 751: 746: 743: 741: 739: 738: 727: 721: 718: 712: 709: 703: 675: 658: 653: 639: 629: 622: 620: 610: 609: 605: 595: 593: 579: 578: 574: 566:Tabasso, Gina. 565: 561: 548: 544: 534: 532: 524: 523: 519: 509: 507: 499: 498: 494: 484: 482: 474: 473: 469: 465: 448: 439: 428:and later a GM 418: 387:At the time of 385: 379: 374: 357:), submitted a 324: 312:Newton D. Baker 301:to be known as 298: 293: 269: 253:local ordinance 187:Harlan F. Stone 177: 165: 153: 135:William H. Taft 96: 49: 47: 41: 22: 17: 12: 11: 5: 832: 830: 822: 821: 816: 811: 806: 801: 796: 791: 781: 780: 736: 735: 730: 688: 674: 673:External links 671: 670: 669: 657: 654: 652: 651: 642:|journal= 603: 572: 559: 555:New York Times 542: 517: 492: 466: 464: 461: 460: 459: 447: 444: 438: 435: 422:General Motors 417: 414: 397:Houston, Texas 378: 375: 373: 370: 347:Alfred Bettman 323: 320: 297: 294: 292: 289: 275:, a suburb of 268: 265: 225: 224: 218: 217: 213: 212: 209: 205: 204: 201: 197: 196: 192: 191: 190: 189: 163:Louis Brandeis 140: 137: 132: 126: 125: 121: 120: 116: 115: 111: 110: 107: 103: 102: 98: 97: 82: 66: 62: 61: 56: 55:Full case name 52: 51: 43: 42: 37: 29: 28: 20: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 831: 820: 817: 815: 812: 810: 807: 805: 802: 800: 797: 795: 792: 790: 787: 786: 784: 777: 774: 734: 731: 726: 717: 708: 701: 697: 693: 689: 687:at Wikisource 686: 681: 677: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 659: 655: 647: 634: 618: 614: 607: 604: 591: 587: 583: 576: 573: 569: 563: 560: 556: 552: 546: 543: 531: 527: 521: 518: 506: 502: 496: 493: 481: 477: 471: 468: 462: 458: 455: 454: 450: 449: 445: 443: 436: 434: 431: 427: 423: 415: 413: 411: 407: 406: 400: 398: 394: 390: 384: 376: 371: 369: 367: 362: 360: 356: 352: 348: 343: 340: 337: 332: 328: 321: 319: 317: 313: 308: 304: 295: 290: 288: 286: 282: 278: 274: 266: 264: 262: 258: 254: 250: 246: 245:landmark case 243: 239: 238: 233: 232: 223: 219: 214: 210: 206: 202: 198: 195:Case opinions 193: 188: 184: 180: 176: 175:Pierce Butler 172: 168: 164: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 141: 138: 136: 133: 131:Chief Justice 130: 129: 127: 122: 117: 112: 108: 104: 99: 94: 90: 86: 80: 79: 74: 71: 67: 63: 60: 57: 53: 44: 40: 30: 25: 19: 814:Euclid, Ohio 737: 691: 633:cite journal 623:February 22, 621:. Retrieved 617:the original 606: 596:February 22, 594:. Retrieved 590:the original 585: 575: 562: 554: 545: 533:. Retrieved 530:4 Law School 529: 520: 508:. Retrieved 504: 495: 483:. Retrieved 479: 470: 451: 440: 426:World War II 419: 409: 403: 401: 392: 388: 386: 372:Significance 366:police power 363: 344: 333: 329: 325: 299: 273:Euclid, Ohio 270: 257:police power 236: 235: 230: 229: 228: 216:Laws applied 182: 170: 158: 146: 101:Case history 76: 58: 18: 760: / 430:Fisher Body 408:(1928). In 339:due process 296:Lower court 285:due process 783:Categories 766: ( 747:81°32′33″W 744:41°33′57″N 656:References 259:bolstered 89:U.S. LEXIS 87:303; 1926 277:Cleveland 65:Citations 690:Text of 446:See also 291:Judgment 240:, was a 200:Majority 707:Findlaw 535:May 19, 510:May 19, 485:May 19, 457:UKPC 43 208:Dissent 114:Holding 728:  722:  719:  716:Justia 713:  710:  704:  665:  437:Legacy 416:Euclid 410:Nectow 393:Euclid 389:Euclid 307:taking 249:zoning 185: 183:· 181:  173: 171:· 169:  161: 159:· 157:  149: 147:· 145:  93:A.L.R. 85:L. Ed. 698: 463:Notes 267:Facts 106:Prior 700:U.S. 663:ISBN 646:help 625:2024 598:2024 537:2014 512:2014 487:2014 95:1016 78:more 70:U.S. 68:272 696:272 586:NPR 73:365 785:: 694:, 637:: 635:}} 631:{{ 584:. 553:. 528:. 503:. 478:. 287:. 770:) 648:) 644:( 627:. 600:. 539:. 514:. 489:. 81:) 75:(

Index

Supreme Court of the United States
U.S.
365
more
L. Ed.
U.S. LEXIS
A.L.R.
William H. Taft
Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
Willis Van Devanter
James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland
Pierce Butler
Edward T. Sanford
Harlan F. Stone
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
United States Supreme Court
landmark case
zoning
local ordinance
police power
zoning in the United States
Euclid, Ohio
Cleveland
the character of the village
due process
the exhaustion of administrative remedies
taking
Newton D. Baker

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.