Pennell v. City of San Jose
United States Supreme Court
485 U.S. 1 (1988)
- Written by Rocco Sainato, JD
Facts
The City of San Jose (defendant) enacted a rent control ordinance which permits a landlord to increase a tenant’s rent by eight percent. If a landlord wishes to raise the rent by more than eight percent, and the tenant objects, a hearing is required. During this hearing, a Mediation Hearing Officer is permitted to take into account several factors, including the hardship to a tenant. Richard Pennell (plaintiff), a San Jose landlord, objected to the terms of the ordinance allowing consideration of hardship to a tenant, resulting from a rent increase. He brought suit alleging that the ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions against taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Pennell argued that the hearing officer’s ability to reduce the rent because of hardship to a tenant is a taking, and is impermissible because it does not serve the purpose of eliminating high rents. The Supreme Court of California ruled that the ordinance was constitutional. Pennell then petitioned for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 780,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
