Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,600+ case briefs...

A-S-P Associates v. City of Raleigh

Supreme Court of North Carolina
258 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1979)


North Carolina statutes authorized municipalities to (1) designate historic districts and (2) require that, after such designation, property owners desiring to build a new structure or alter the exterior of an existing structure first obtain permission from a historic-district commission. The statutes required the commissions to have a majority of members who demonstrated special interest, experience, or education in history or architecture. The commissions were not to consider interior arrangement but to prevent only exterior changes that were incongruous with a district’s historic aspects. Accordingly, the City of Raleigh (the city) (defendant) adopted ordinances (the Oakwood ordinances) designating the Oakwood neighborhood as a historic district, establishing the Raleigh Historic District Commission (RHDC), adopting standards to guide the RHDC, and providing penalties for noncompliance. A-S-P Associates (Associates) (plaintiff) owned land within Oakwood and sought a declaratory judgment that the Oakwood ordinances were invalid. Associates argued that the Oakwood ordinances had deprived Associates of its property without due process in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the North Carolina constitution. Associates argued that an aesthetic land-use statute violated due process if the statute lacked relation to health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Associates further argued the Oakwood ordinances did not provide adequate standards for the regulation of private property and impermissibly delegated legislative power to the RHDC. Further, Associates argued that even if the restrictions on existing structures were valid, the restrictions on the construction of new structures were unconstitutional. The superior court granted summary judgment for the city. The court of appeals reversed. The city appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Brock, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial