Kaelin v. City of Louisville
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
| Writing for the Court | STEPHENS; All concur, except STEPHENSON; STEPHENSON |
| Citation | 643 S.W.2d 590 |
| Parties | Thomas J. KAELIN, et al., Movants, v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE, et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1982 |
Page 590
v.
CITY OF LOUISVILLE, et al., Respondents.
Motion to Allow Late Filing of
Petition for Rehearing Denied
Jan. 27, 1983.
Alan T. Slyn, Louisville, for movants.
Walter R. Butt, III, Porter & Gulick, Alex F. Talbott, Max E. Simmons, Louisville, for respondents.
STEPHENS, Chief Justice.
The sole issue we decide on this appeal is whether the right of cross-examination is required by due process of law in a trial-type adjudicatory hearing before an administrative body. The Court of Appeals answered in the negative. We disagree, and reverse.
Respondent property owner, Bellarmine College, and respondent land developer, Highland Community Ministries, Inc. jointly applied to the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission for a zone change. Following a public hearing, the Commission recommended that the existing zoning classification of the property be changed from single family residential to multi-family apartments. The Board of Aldermen of the City of Louisville accepted the recommendation and enacted an ordinance which accomplished the zone change. The movants, adjacent property owners
Page 591
who opposed the zone change from its inception, appealed to the circuit court, seeking to have the ordinance invalidated. That court upheld the ordinance, as did the Court of Appeals. We granted discretionary review.Although movants present several arguments, in view of our disposition of the case, we will discuss only one. During the course of the public hearing before the Commission, movants were specifically denied the right to cross-examine the applicants' witnesses whose testimony supported application for a zone change.
The Court of Appeals decided that even though movants were denied the right of cross-examination, they were "afforded a full and complete opportunity to present any and all evidence in support of their position." Relying on City of Louisville v. McDonald, Ky., 470 S.W.2d 173 (1971), the court reasoned that although movants had a right to a "trial-type hearing", such a right does not "normally" include the right of cross-examination. Apparently the court believes that the right to cross-examine is not required by due process if the facts of the particular case indicate that all parties have been afforded the opportunity to present their side of the question.
Basically, judicial review of administrative action is concerned with the question of arbitrariness. Section 2 of the Kentucky Constitution prohibits the exercise of arbitrary power over the "lives, liberty and property" of the citizens of the Commonwealth. In the interest of fairness and in order to comply with the mandate of Section 2, a party whose rights are affected by an administrative action is entitled to procedural due process. Moreover, administrative proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donnelly Assoc. v. D.C. Historic Preservation, No. 84-1594.
...cross-examination at hearing to obtain special permit to conduct regulated activities in wetlands area); Kaelin v. City of Louisville, 643 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Ky. 1982) (relying on Goldberg v. Kelly, the court holds cross-examination constitutionally required in zone change...
-
Moore v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Gov't, 2020-CA-1296-MR
..."[J]udicial review of administrative action is concerned with the question of arbitrariness." Kaelin v. City of Louisville, 643 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Ky. 1982). The scope of appellate review for arbitrariness extends to "(1) action in excess of granted powers, (2) lack of procedural due process,......
-
Sever v. Dane County, No. 96-1473
...the Severs cite Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So.2d 648, 652-53 (Fla.App.1982), and Kaelin v. City of Louisville, 643 S.W.2d 590 (Ky.1982), in which the courts recognized a right to cross-examination in quasi-judicial hearings. State courts are divided, however, on whether ......
-
Winslow v. Town of Holderness Planning Bd., No. 83-129
...whether due process requirements were met. Other jurisdictions have adopted a similar view. See, e.g., Kaelin v. City of Louisville, 643 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Ky.1982); Kletschka v. LeSueur County Bd. of Com'rs, 277 N.W.2d 404, 405 (Minn.1979); Geiger v. Levco Rte 46 Associates, Ltd., 181 N.J.Su......
-
Donnelly Assoc. v. D.C. Historic Preservation, No. 84-1594.
...cross-examination at hearing to obtain special permit to conduct regulated activities in wetlands area); Kaelin v. City of Louisville, 643 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Ky. 1982) (relying on Goldberg v. Kelly, the court holds cross-examination constitutionally required in zone change...
-
Moore v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Gov't, 2020-CA-1296-MR
..."[J]udicial review of administrative action is concerned with the question of arbitrariness." Kaelin v. City of Louisville, 643 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Ky. 1982). The scope of appellate review for arbitrariness extends to "(1) action in excess of granted powers, (2) lack of procedural due process,......
-
Sever v. Dane County, No. 96-1473
...the Severs cite Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So.2d 648, 652-53 (Fla.App.1982), and Kaelin v. City of Louisville, 643 S.W.2d 590 (Ky.1982), in which the courts recognized a right to cross-examination in quasi-judicial hearings. State courts are divided, however, on whether ......
-
Winslow v. Town of Holderness Planning Bd., No. 83-129
...whether due process requirements were met. Other jurisdictions have adopted a similar view. See, e.g., Kaelin v. City of Louisville, 643 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Ky.1982); Kletschka v. LeSueur County Bd. of Com'rs, 277 N.W.2d 404, 405 (Minn.1979); Geiger v. Levco Rte 46 Associates, Ltd., 181 N.J.Su......