Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. | |
---|---|
Argued January 27, 1926 Reargued October 12, 1926 Decided November 22, 1926 | |
Full case name | Village of Euclid, Ohio, et al. v. Ambler Realty Company |
Citations | 272 U.S. 365 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
Holding | |
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. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Sutherland, joined by Taft, Holmes, Brandeis, Sanford, Stone |
Dissent | Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), more commonly known as Euclid v. Ambler, was a United States Supreme Court landmark case[1] argued in 1926. It was the first significant case regarding the relatively new practice of zoning. The Supreme Court's finding that local ordinance zoning was a valid exercise of the police power bolstered zoning in the United States and influenced other countries.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search