Reid v. Architectural Board of Review of City of Cleveland Heights

119 Ohio App. 67, 192 N.E.2d 74 (1963)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Reid v. Architectural Board of Review of City of Cleveland Heights

Court of Appeals of Ohio
119 Ohio App. 67, 192 N.E.2d 74 (1963)

Facts

Donna S. Reid (plaintiff) sought a permit to build a residence on a lot owned by Reid and her husband on North Park Boulevard in the City of Cleveland Heights, which was a primarily residential community. Buildings on North Park Boulevard were largely conventional residences about two-and-a-half stories in height. Reid sought to build a U-shaped structure winding through trees on her property, with a detached garage and various gardens and attached courts. A wall of the same height as the house was to surround the house, protecting the house from being viewed from the street. Reid’s permit application was referred to the Architectural Board of Review (the board), which was composed of three architects. The board denied the permit on the ground that the residence did not “maintain the high character of community development” as required by § 137.05 of the Codified Ordinances of Cleveland Heights, because (1) the residence did not aesthetically conform to the character of the houses in the area, (2) the residence might not look like a residence when viewed from the street, and (3) the residence was adjacent to homes and vacant lots with property values that might be affected. Reid appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, which held that § 137.05 was a valid enactment under the city’s police power, the board had the authority to render the decision, the board did not abuse its discretion, and Reid received due process. Reid appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kovachy, J.)

Dissent (Corrigan, 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 804,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 804,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership