Carroll v. City of Louisville
| Citation | 354 S.W.2d 291 |
| Parties | Thomas C. CARROLL, Appellant, v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE et al., Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 16 February 1962 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
Thomas C. Carroll, pro se.
William E. Berry, Director of Law, Marshall B. Woodson, Jr., Louisville, for appellees.
WADDILL, Commissioner.
Appellant, Thomas C. Carroll, brought this action against appellees, City of Louisville and certain agencies thereof, seeking to recover damages in the sum of $7,750 which he allegedly sustained by reason of the city's refusal to issue a certain building permit. The circuit court sustained a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint did not state a claim on which relief could be granted. The appeal is from the judgment of dismissal.
We summarize the allegations which constitute the basis of appellant's claim. Appellant obtained an option to purchase certain real estate located in Louisville. The option gave him the right to acquire this property for $9,250. Subsequently, and during the effective term of the option, appellant received an offer of $17,000 for the property. This offer was contingent upon the city's issuing a building permit for the erection of improvements thereon. In the meantime the Board of Aldermen of the City of Louisville had passed a resolution authorizing the city to acquire by condemnation or purchase an area of real estate, including that optioned to appellant, for the purpose of establishing a redevelopment project. After the passage of the resolution the city refused to issue a building permit and appellant was unable to consummate the sale of the property for $17,000. Appellant asserted that the city's refusal to issue the building permit to him or his prospective purchaser amounted to a taking of his legal interests in the property without due process of law by which he was damaged in the sum of $7,750.
The issuance of building permits by the City of Louisville is regulated by an ordinance requiring that applications for such permits be made by the owner of the property. Assuming, without deciding, that an action of this character may be brought against a city, the complaint is fatally defective because there is no allegation that the owner of the property complied with the ordinance by filing an application for a building permit. Irving v. City of Heghlands, Colo., 53 P. 234. Moreover, as to appellant's assertion that there had been a taking of his legal interests in the property amounting to a condemnation thereof by the city, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County of San Diego v. Miller
...the land itself and no claim against the state for its condemnation.' (Id. at p. 848, 176 N.Y.S. at p. 100; see also, Carroll v. City of Louisville (Ky.1942) 354 S.W.2d 291; Cravero v. Florida State Turnpike Authority (Fla.1956) 91 So.2d 312.) Similarly, in Cornell-Andrews Smelting Co. v. B......
-
State ex rel. Nevada Dept. of Transp. v. Las Vegas Bldg. Materials, Inc.
...Parish School Bd. v. Lupo, 470 So.2d 202 (La.App.1985); State v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 40 N.J. 560, 193 A.2d 244 (1963); Carroll v. Louisville, 354 S.W.2d 291 (Ky.1962); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Omaha, 171 Neb. 457, 106 N.W.2d 727 (1960); Cravero v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 91 So.2......