Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, N.Y.
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 590, 82 S. Ct. 987, 8 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1962)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Herbert Goldblatt (plaintiff) owned a 38-acre tract of land in the town of Hempstead (the town) (defendant). Builders Sand and Gravel Corporation mined sand and gravel on Goldblatt’s lot. The lot had been used for mining and excavating continuously since 1927. The excavation had reached the water table within its first year. In 1945, the town passed ordinance No. 16 (the ordinance). In 1958, the town amended the ordinance to prohibit any excavation below the water table without a permit and to impose an affirmative duty to refill any excavation that was below that level. In 1959, the town brought an action to enjoin further mining on Goldblatt’s lot because he had continued excavating below the water table without a permit in violation of the ordinance. Goldblatt argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it was completely prohibitory and confiscated his property without compensation. Goldblatt did not present much conclusive evidence and did not show that the prohibition of future mining would decrease the value of his lot. The trial court found in favor of the town, and Goldblatt was enjoined from conducting further operations until they came into compliance with the ordinance. Goldblatt appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clark, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.