Statements (23)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court_case
|
| gptkbp:alsoKnownAs |
gptkb:Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Realty_Co.
|
| gptkbp:citation |
gptkb:272_U.S._365
|
| gptkbp:country |
gptkb:United_States
|
| gptkbp:date |
1926-11-22
|
| gptkbp:defendant |
Village of Euclid
|
| gptkbp:docketNumber |
No. 31
|
| gptkbp:heldBy |
Zoning ordinances are constitutional under the police power of the state
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
|
| gptkbp:impact |
upheld constitutionality of zoning ordinances
|
| gptkbp:judge |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:location |
gptkb:Euclid,_Ohio
|
| gptkbp:majorityOpinionBy |
gptkb:Justice_George_Sutherland
|
| gptkbp:plaintiff |
gptkb:Ambler_Realty_Co.
|
| gptkbp:predecessor |
zoning law in the United States
|
| gptkbp:principle |
due process
police power takings clause |
| gptkbp:relatedTo |
gptkb:Nectow_v._City_of_Cambridge
|
| gptkbp:subject |
zoning
land use regulation |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Land_Use_Regulation
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
7
|