Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.
ArgueDate=January 27
ArgueYear=1926
ReargueDate=October 12
ReargueYear=1926
DecideDate=November 22
DecideYear=1926
FullName=Village of Euclid, Ohio, et al. v. Ambler Realty Company
USVol=272
USPage=365
Citation=47 S. Ct. 114; 71 L. Ed. 303; 1926 U.S. LEXIS 8; 4 Ohio L. Abs. 816; 54 A.L.R. 1016
Prior=Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Subsequent=
Holding=The Court argued 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.
SCOTUS=1925-1930
Majority=Sutherland
JoinMajority=Taft, Holmes, Stone, Brandeis, Sanford
Dissent=Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler
LawsApplied=U.S. Const.

"Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.", ussc|272|365|1926, more commonly "Euclid v. Ambler", was a United States Supreme Court case argued in 1926. It was the first significant and landmark case regarding the relatively new practice of zoning, and served to substantially bolster zoning ordinances in towns nationwide in the United States and in other countries of the world including Canada.

Prior history

In the lower court, the village of Euclid 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. The court denied this motion. Finding that the zoning ordinance did in fact constitute a taking by Euclid of Ambler's property, the court stated that the ordinance was unconstitutional. 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 Newton D. Baker argued the case for Ambler Realty and James Metzenbaum represented Euclid.

The Case

Ambler Realty owned 68 acres (275,000 m²) of land in the village of Euclid, a suburb of Cleveland. The village, in an attempt to prevent industrial Cleveland from growing into and subsuming Euclid and prevent the growth of industry which might change the character of the village, developed a zoning ordinance based upon 6 classes of use, 3 classes of height and 4 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 parcel for industry. Ambler Realty sued the village, arguing that the zoning ordinance had substantially reduced the value of the parcel by limiting its use, amounting to a deprivation of Ambler's liberty and property without due process ("i.e.", an unconstitutional "taking").

The Decision

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 argued 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.

Further, the Court found that Ambler Realty had offered no evidence that the ordinance had in fact 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.

Ambler Realty had argued their case on the basis of the 14th Amendment's due process 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.

Planner and lawyer Alfred Bettman submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of Euclid, arguing that zoning is a form of nuisance control and therefore a reasonable police power measure.

ubsequent history

Zoning precedent

At the time of "Euclid", 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 finding 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 "Euclid", and the power of government to address land use issues via zoning ordinances is almost universally accepted. Today most local governments in the United States have zoning ordinances.

Less than two years later, the Supreme Court decided Nectow v. City of Cambridge. In "Nectow", the Court overturned a zoning ordinance for violating the 14th Amendment due process clause.

Together, the "Village of Euclid" and "Nectow" cases formed the basis of Supreme Court authority on zoning law for about 50 years.

Euclid

The Ambler tract remained undeveloped for 20 years until General Motors built an aircraft plant there during World War II and later a GM Fisher Body plant until the 1970s. The factory has since been vacant.

External links

*caselaw source
case="Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. ", 272 U.S. 365 (1992)
enfacto=http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./272/365/
findlaw=http://laws.findlaw.com/us/272/365.html
* [http://www.planning.org/pathways/details/euclid.htm Euclid | Thematic Chronology of Planning]

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court Cases
*Zoning