X hits on this document

104 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

25 / 52

No.

2006AP450

flow

from the

course

which

it

would

follow,

to

the

injury of the residential public, if left alone, another course where such injury will be obviated.

to It

is not meant by this, however, to exclude the possibility of cases where the general public interest would so far outweigh the interest of the municipality that the municipality would not be allowed to stand in

the way.

clarify the

discussion

regarding

substantive due

process

challenges to

zoning.

See, e.g.,

Moore v. City

of East

to

431 U.S. 494,

498 n.6

(1977); Pearson,

961 F.2d

the line between a valid or invalid exercise of

helped

Cleveland, Ohio,

have

1211.

Even so,

cases

other

Euclid,

of

wake

Id.

at 389-90.

¶36

In

the

police power remains less than clear. Euclid, "[t]he line which in this field

As the Court noted in separates the legitimate

from the

illegitimate

assumption of

power

is not capable

of

precise

delimitation.

It varies

with

circumstances

and

conditions. A regulatory clearly valid as applied to invalid as applied to rural 387.

zoning

ordinance,

which

would

be

the great cities,

might be

communities."

Euclid,

272

clearly U.S. at

¶37 While the line between permissible and impermissible zoning may not always be readily ascertainable, the requisite standard that must be applied for a substantive due process challenge is clear: we must determine whether the ordinance is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable in the restricted sense that it has no substantial relation to the public health, safety,

23

Document info
Document views104
Page views104
Page last viewedFri Dec 02 20:38:52 UTC 2016
Pages52
Paragraphs3975
Words12857

Comments