Village of Hudson v. Albrecht
Ohio Supreme Court
458 N.E.2d 852 (1984)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
The planning and zoning code for the Village of Hudson (plaintiff) created an Architectural and Historic Board of Review (the board) tasked with protecting and maintaining village property value, use, and appearance, preserving the public health and safety of the area’s citizens, and preventing property-value decline. Under the village code, the board could achieve the identified purposes by regulating design and other building aspects according to standard, accepted architectural principles. Albrecht (defendant) submitted construction plans to the village for work on a building located within a shopping center. The plans were approved by both the village building inspector and the board. After the work began, the inspector issued a stop work order when he learned that Albrecht was making improvements, that had not been included in the plan, to the part of the building facing the public street. Albrecht completed the alterations despite the order. The village brought suit seeking to enjoin Albrecht from continuing construction and requiring removal of the unapproved alterations. The court directed Albrecht to submit the amended plans for approval by the board in accordance with the village ordinances. Albrecht appealed, contending that the code provisions were unconstitutional because they were based only on aesthetic considerations and included insufficient standards by which the board should review permit applications.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Celebrezze, J.)
Dissent (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
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.