Kaelin v. City of Louisville

Citation643 S.W.2d 590
PartiesThomas J. KAELIN, et al., Movants, v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE, et al., Respondents.
Decision Date14 December 1982
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)

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 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 which affect a party's rights but do not afford an opportunity to be heard could likewise be classified as arbitrary. American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville, Ky., 379 S.W.2d 450 (1964).

A constitutional due process requires a trial type hearing for the purpose of determining the adjudicative facts necessary to decide the issue. City of Louisville v. McDonald, Ky., 470 S.W.2d 173 (1971). Procedural due process is required in proceedings before a zoning board. Morris v. City of Catlettsburg, Ky., 437 S.W.2d 753 (1969). The requisite procedural elements are a hearing, the taking and weighing of evidence, a finding of fact based upon an evaluation of the evidence and conclusions supported by substantial evidence. McDonald, supra, at 177. Proceedings before a Board of Zoning Adjustment were held to be a denial of procedural due process where there was no real hearing, no taking of evidence and no finding of fact. Morris, supra. A trial-type hearing is automatically required for disputes of adjudicative facts (as opposed to legislative facts ).

It is beyond cavil that a hearing held for the purpose of granting and denying a zone change is of an adjudicatory nature. McDonald, supra. We are thus faced with the precise question of whether cross-examination is a specific right of procedural due process in such cases.

Respondents argue that cross-examination in a zoning hearing is not required. It is claimed: (1) that movants did not show prejudice to their case by the failure to allow cross-examination; (2) that movants were given every opportunity to present their issues; (3) that hearings before administrative boards should be less formal; (4) that to allow...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • Donnelly Assoc. v. D.C. Historic Preservation
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • 14 Enero 1987
    ... ... In contrast, in several other places within the Act the City Council specified when a hearing was required. The Mayor is expressly required to hold a "public ... at hearing to obtain special permit to conduct regulated activities in wetlands area); Kaelin ... City of Louisville ... ...
  • Moore v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Gov't
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 7 Enero 2022
    ... ... "[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) ... ...
  • Winslow v. Town of Holderness Planning Bd.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 26 Julio 1984
    ... ... Michael v. City of Rochester, 119 N.H. 734, 736, 407 A.2d 819, 821 (1979) ...         The rationale for ... 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, ... ...
  • Sever v. Dane County
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • 13 Marzo 1997
    ... ... our ruling, we are mindful of the fact that while the retention of this authority by the city plan commission and the common council was in direct derogation of state law, it may well be that ... 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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT