Prentiss v. American University Wrather v. American University
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dupont Circle Citizen's Ass'n v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission (D.C. 1975)
- Lowe v. City of Missoula (Mont. 1974)
- Bilbar Construction Co. v. Easttown Township Board of Adjustment (Pa. 1958)
- O'BOYLE v. Coe (District Court, District of Columbia 1957)
- Ruppert v. Washington (District Court, District of Columbia 1973)
- Ford v. Baltimore County (Md. 1973)
- Capitol Hill Restoration Society v. Zoning Commission (D.C. 1972)
- Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown, Inc. v. Washington (D.C. 1972)
- Harry Shenk v. The Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1971)
- S. Jon Gerstenfeld v. T. Sutton Jett (D.C. Cir. 1967)
- Capital Properties, Inc. v. Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 1964)
- Donovan v. Clarke (District Court, District of Columbia 1963)
- White v. City of Twin Falls (Idaho 1959)
- Ruben v. City of Pittsburgh (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1956)
- United States ex rel. Leon v. Shaughnessy (District Court, S.D. New York 1956)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
An order of the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia rezonod the campus of The American University from residential “A” to residential “A restricted”. The immediate effect of the order was to prevent the building on the campus of a hospital to be maintained in connection with a School of Nursing.
*283 “The governmental power to interfere by zoning regulations with the general rights of the land owner by restricting the character of his use, is not unlimited, and. other questions aside, such restriction cannot be imposed if it does not bear a substantial relation to the public health,, safety, morals, or general welfare.” Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 188, 48 S.Ct. 447, 448, 72 L.Ed. 842. In the District Court, Judge Holtzoff found that the restriction which the rezoning order would impose on the University’s right to use its land did not meet this requirement. He therefore found the order unconstitutional, and set it aside, as taking the University’s property without due process of law. 1 D.C., 113 F.Supp. 389. We think he was clearly right. The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.