Ambler Realty Co. v. Village of Euclid, Ohio: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Euclid argued that the ordinance was a valid exercise of its police power in the state of Ohio for [[zoning in the United States]]. | Euclid argued that the ordinance was a valid exercise of its police power in the state of Ohio for [[zoning in the United States]]. | ||
|holding=An ordinance that interferes with an owner's use of private property constitutes a taking under the [[5th Amendment]]. | |holding=An ordinance that interferes with an owner's use of private property constitutes a [[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Takings_Clause|taking]] under the [[5th Amendment]]. | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/ambler-realty-co-v-893733351 | |link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/ambler-realty-co-v-893733351 | ||
Revision as of 16:47, February 24, 2023
| Ambler Realty Co. v. Village of Euclid, Ohio | |
| Court | United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | January 14, 1924 |
Facts
The village of Euclid was a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio in the early 1920s. The village had a potential for population growth and economic boom. The village passed an ordinance to restrict land use.
The village of Euclid created 6 classes of land uses, impose height restrictions on buildings, and created setbacks.
Ambler Realty Company owned 68 acres of un-improved land in Euclid, Ohio. The ordinance forced Ambler Realty to limit its percentage of land for industry and manufacturing to a small percentage.Procedural History
Ambler asked the U.S. federal district court in northern Ohio to invalidate the Euclid ordinance.
Arguments
Ambler argued that the Euclid ordinance depressed the market value of its property by several $100,000 in the 1920s.
Euclid argued that the ordinance was a valid exercise of its police power in the state of Ohio for zoning in the United States.Holding
An ordinance that interferes with an owner's use of private property constitutes a taking under the 5th Amendment.
