John Paul Stevens

Name: Moore v. City of East Cleveland — Concurrence Stevens
Author: John Paul Stevens

Moore v. City of East Cleveland… (1977)

Summary

“Moore v. City of East Cleveland — Concurrence Stevens”, published in 1977, is a work by John Paul Stevens. It explores elements such as ordinance, housekeeping and overcrowding.

Quotes from Moore v. City of East Cleveland… (John Paul Stevens)

John Paul Stevens, Moore v. City of East Cleveland… (1977)

“ Wisconsin, [13] and other jurisdictions, [14] have permitted unrelated persons to occupy single-family residences notwithstanding an ordinance prohibiting, either expressly or implicitly, such occupancy.
These cases delineate the extent to which the state courts have allowed zoning ordinances to interfere with the right of a property owner to determine the internal composition of his household. The intrusion on that basic property right has not previously gone beyond the point where the ordinance defines a family to include only persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Moore v. City of East Cleveland… (1977)

“ Of course, a community has other legitimate concerns in zoning an area for single-family use including prevention of overcrowding in residences and prevention of traffic congestion. A community which attacks these problems by restricting the composition of a household is using a means not reasonably related to the ends it seeks to achieve. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Moore v. City of East Cleveland… (1977)

“ To prevent overcrowding, a community can certainly place a limit on the number of occupants in a household, either in absolute terms or in relation to the available floor space. Indeed, the city of East Cleveland had on its books an ordinance requiring a minimum amount of floor space per occupant in every dwelling. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Moore v. City of East Cleveland… (1977)

“ Until compelled to do so by a New Jersey precedent squarely in point, this court will not conclude that persons who have economic or other personal reasons for living together as a bona fide single housekeeping unit and who have no other orientation, commit a zoning violation, with possible penal consequences, just because they are not related. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Moore v. City of East Cleveland… (1977)

“ Those cases shed a revelatory light on the character of the single-family zoning ordinance challenged in this case.
Litigation involving single-family zoning ordinances is common. Although there appear to be almost endless differences in the language used in these ordinances, [3] they contain three principal types of restrictions. First, they define the kind of structure that may be erected on vacant land. [4] Second, they require that a single-family home be occupied only by a "single housekeeping unit." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Moore v. City of East Cleveland… (1977)

“ These institutional uses are not only inconsistent with the single-housekeeping-unit concept but include many more people than would normally inhabit a single-family dwelling.↑ . In City of Des Plaines v. Trottner, 34 Ill. 2d 432, 216 N.E.2d 116 (1966) , the Illinois Supreme Court faced a challenge to a single-family zoning ordinance by a group of four unrelated young men who occupied a dwelling in violation of the ordinance which provided that a "'family' consists of one or more persons each related to the other by blood (or adoption or marriage) ...." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Moore v. City of East Cleveland… (1977)

“ As this Court recognized in Euclid, even residential apartments can have a negative impact on an area of single-family homes.↑ . Limiting use to single-housekeeping units, like limitations on the number of occupants, protects the community's interest in minimizing overcrowding, avoiding the excessive use of municipal services, traffic control, and other aspects of an attractive physical environment. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Moore v. City of East Cleveland… (1977)

“ App. 117, 85 N.E.2d 461 (1948) ; a retirement home designed for over 20 people, Kellog v. Joint Council of Women's Auxiliaries Welfare Assn., 265 S.W.2d 374 (Mo. 1954) ; and a commercial therapeutic home for emotionally disturbed children, Browndale International v. ”

John Paul Stevens

Summary

Quotes from Moore v. City of East Cleveland… (John Paul Stevens)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature