X hits on this document

156 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

24 / 52

No.

2006AP450

¶35

A

facial

substantive

due

process

challenge,

as

the

landowners have made in this case, is only one of many ways in which a landowner can challenge a limitation on the use of his

substantive

due

process

challenges

are

rarely

successful.

Mandelker,

supra,

§ 2.39,

at 2-46.

The

seminal

zoning case,

or her land.

See Pearson,

961 F.2d at 1215-16.

However, facial

which

involved a

facial

substantive

due process

challenge,

is

Euclid. Euclid,

16

See the

Mandelker,

supra,

court

upheld

§ 2.06 the

(discussing Euclid).

constitutionality

of

In a

comprehensive zoning ordinance

process

challenge.

Id.

at

2-9

against a and 2-10.

facial substantive due The Village of Euclid

adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance that zoned

question

so

as

to

allow

only

residential

use.

See

the area in Euclid, 272

U.S. uses.

at

379-84. Id. The

In so doing, it excluded all non-residential Supreme Court noted that the exclusion of

industrial use included "neither offensive nor

even those dangerous."

industrial uses

that are

Id. at 388.

The Court

concluded that "[i]t cannot be said that respect 'passes the bounds of reason and

the ordinance in this assumes the character

of a merely arbitrary fiat.'" The Court stated:

Id.

at 389

(citation omitted).

If it be a proper exercise of the police power to relegate industrial establishments to localities separated from residential sections, it is not easy to find a sufficient reason for denying the power because the effect of its exercise is to divert an industrial

16

Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co, 272 U.S. 365

(1926).

22

Document info
Document views156
Page views156
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 08:49:05 UTC 2017
Pages52
Paragraphs3975
Words12857

Comments