The case is about a zoning ordinance in the City of Cambridge that divides the city into districts, each with specific building regulations. The plaintiff's land was placed in a residential district that only permits certain types of buildings. The plaintiff argues that this violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it deprives them of their property without due process of law. The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to receive a building permit regardless of the zoning ordinance. The master hearing the case found that the land cannot be practically used for residential purposes and would not provide an adequate return on investment. The court found that the plaintiff's land being zoned for residential use would not benefit the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the city's inhabitants, given the natural development and character of the district. The court found that the zoning ordinance's disposition of the plaintiff's land would not promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)
Supreme Court of the United States
277 U.S. 183, 72 L. Ed. 842, 48 S. Ct. 447, SCDB 1927-111, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 683
Learn more about this case at [ Ссылка ]
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: [ Ссылка ]
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: [ Ссылка ]
