Nectow v. City of Cambridge, No. 509

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSUTHERLAND
Citation48 S.Ct. 447,277 U.S. 183,72 L.Ed. 842
PartiesNECTOW v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE et al
Decision Date14 May 1928
Docket NumberNo. 509

277 U.S. 183
48 S.Ct. 447
72 L.Ed. 842
NECTOW

v.

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE et al.

No. 509.
Argued April 19, 1928.
Decided May 14, 1928.

Messrs. Judson Hannigan and John E. Hannigan, both of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Peter J. Nelligan and Joseph P. Lyons, both of Boston, Mass., for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 183-185 intentionally omitted]

Page 185

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

A zoning ordinance of the city of Cambridge divides the city into three kinds of districts, residential, business, and unrestricted. Each of these districts is subclassified in respect of the kind of buildings which way be erected. The ordinance is an elaborate one, and of the same general character as that considered by this court in Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U. S. 365, 47 S. Ct. 114, 71 L. Ed. 303. In its general scope it is conceded to be constitutional within that decision. The land of plaintiff in error was put in district R-3, in which are permitted only dwellings, hotels, clubs, churches, schools, philanthropic institutions, greenhouses and gardening, with customary incidental accessories. The attack upon the ordinance is that, as specifically applied to plaintiff in error, it deprived him of his property without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Page 186

The suit was for a mandatory injunction directing the city and its inspector of buildings to pass upon an application of the plaintiff in error for a permit to erect any lawful buildings upon a tract of land without regard to the provisions of the ordinance including such tract within a residential district. The case was referred to a master to make and report findings of fact. After a view of the premises and the surrounding territory, and a hearing, the master made and reported his findings. The case came on to be heard by a justice of the court, who, after confirming the master's report, reported the case for the determination of the full court. Upon consideration, that court sustained the ordinance as applied to plaintiff in error, and dismissed the bill. 157 N. E. 618.

A condensed statement of facts, taken from the master's report, is all that is necessary. When the zoning ordinance was enacted, plaintiff in error was and still is the owner of a tract of land containing 140,000 square feet, of which the locus here in question is a part. The locus contains about 29,000 square feet, with a frontage on Brookline street, lying west, of 304.75 feet, on Henry street, lying north, of 100 feet, on the other land of the plaintiff in error, lying east, of 264 feet, and on land of the Ford Motor Company, lying southerly, of 75 feet. The territory lying east and south is unrestricted. The lands beyond Henry street to the north and beyond Brookline street to the west are within a restricted residential...

To continue reading

Request your trial
488 practice notes
  • Bossier City Medical Suite v. City of Bossier City, Civ. A. No. 79-1336.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana
    • January 21, 1980
    ...corporate limits. Such a zoning ordinance is valid unless it exceeds constitutional restrictions. B. In Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 48 S.Ct. 447, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1927), Justice Sutherland stated: A court should not set aside the determination of public officers in such a matter......
  • Kamaole Pointe Development Lp v. County of Maui, No. CV. 07-00447 DAE-LEK.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • July 3, 2008
    ...the Court determined that the "substantially advances" test: (1) was derived from due process precedents such as Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 48 S.Ct. 447, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1928)11 and Euclid;12(2) suggests a means-ends test that is not a valid means of discerning whether private propert......
  • Town of Beech Mountain v. Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc., Nos. COA15–260
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • May 10, 2016
    ...health, the public morals, the public safety or the public welfare in its proper sense.’ " Id. (quoting Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 187–88, 48 S.Ct. 447, 448, 72 L.Ed. 842, 844 (1928) ). Further, "[i]n making this determination we may consider, among other factors, whether: (......
  • Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals, (SC 16208)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 2, 2001
    ...action that is beyond the zoning power may constitute an unconstitutional taking, no matter how far it goes. E.g., Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 48 S. Ct. 447, 72 L. Ed. 842 (1928); see also Port Clinton Associates v. Board of Selectmen, 217 Conn. 588, 600, 587 A.2d 126, cert. denied, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
448 cases
  • Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, No. 85-5838
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 9, 1987
    ...does not substantially advance legitimate state interests...." Id. at 260, 100 S.Ct. at 2141 (citing Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 188, 48 S.Ct. 447, 448, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1928)); see also United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 106 S.Ct. 455, 459, 88 L.......
  • Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, No. 85-5838
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 22, 1986
    ...does not substantially advance legitimate state interests...." Id. at 260, 100 S.Ct. at 2141 (citing Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 188, 48 S.Ct. 447, 448, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1928)); see also United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 455, 459, 88 L......
  • Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, No. 85-5838.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 22, 1986
    ...does not substantially advance legitimate state interests...." Id. at 260, 100 S.Ct. at 2141 (citing Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 188, 48 S.Ct. 447, 448, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1928)); see also United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 106 S.Ct. 455, 459, 88 L.......
  • Bevan v. Brandon Tp., Docket No. 86358
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 15, 1991
    ...5 See, e.g., Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980); Penn Central, n. 3 supra; Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 48 S.Ct. 447, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1928); Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395, 47 S.Ct. 114, 121, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926); Gackler v. Y......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • A REIGN OF ERROR: PROPERTY RIGHTS AND STARE DECISIS.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 Nbr. 2, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available."). (30.) See, e.g., Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183,188 (1928) ("The governmental power to interfere by zoning regulations with the general rights of the land owner by restricting the character o......
  • REFORMING THE VISUAL ARTISTS RIGHTS ACT TO PROTECT #STREETART IN THE DIGITAL AGE.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 Nbr. 2, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...M Realty L.P. v. Castillo, 141 S. Ct. 363 (2020). (200.) 438 U.S. 104, 138(1978). (201.) Id. at 125 (quoting Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 188 (202.) See id. (203.) See 17 U.S.C. [section] 113(d). (204.) See id. (205.) See supra Part III.A. This is especially true if Congress w......

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