State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley
Missouri Supreme Court
458 S.W.2d 305 (1970)
- Written by Dennis Chong, JD
Facts
The City of Ladue enacted ordinances that created an architectural board (board) to review and approve designs for buildings in the city prior to construction. The board was made up of architects and followed strict procedures, involving public hearings and notice, before approving or denying proposals. Stoyanoff owned land in the city and proposed to build a house. The house was of a more modern design than the other houses in the neighborhood, which were very traditional. Stoyanoff’s plans complied with all city zoning regulations and ordinances. Nevertheless, the board denied the building permit. At Stoyanoff’s request, the state (Stoyanoff) (plaintiff) brought an action against Berkeley (defendant), the building commissioner, claiming that the regulations constituted an arbitrary and capricious exercise of police power. Stoyanoff claimed that the regulations were unconstitutionally vague and gave no guidance to the board. Further, Stoyanoff argued that the property-use restrictions caused an effective taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Missouri State Constitution. At the trial, a developer testified that homes in the area were valued at between $60,000 and $85,000 and that construction of Stoyanoff’s proposed home would have a substantial adverse impact on market values in the neighborhood. The trial court granted summary judgment to Stoyanoff and issued a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling Berkeley to issue the building permit. Berkeley appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pritchard, Commr.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.