Yurczyk v. Yellowstone County

319 Mont. 169, 83 P.3d 266 (2004)

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

Yurczyk v. Yellowstone County

Montana Supreme Court
319 Mont. 169, 83 P.3d 266 (2004)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

In 1994, the Board of County Commissioners of Yellowstone County (the board) (defendant) adopted a resolution that created Zoning District 17 (District 17) and adopted zoning regulations for the zoning district. The regulations included a provision that dwelling units could only be single-family units, had to have a minimum gross floor area of 1,500 square feet, and could only be constructed on-site with new materials within a year. In 1999, Francis and Anita Yurczyk (plaintiffs) purchased 80 acres of land in District 17. The Yurczyks purchased a modular home and moved it onto the property in May of 2000. The Yellowstone County Planning Board immediately received a complaint regarding the modular home. A planner from the Yellowstone County Planning Department made two visits to the property and informed the Yurczyks that the modular home violated the on-site construction provision regulations and it needed to be removed by the end of the month. The Yurczyks requested a hearing from the Yellowstone County Board of Adjustment. The request was forwarded to the Board of Adjustment for District 17, which held a hearing and affirmed the decision of the Planning Department. The Yurczyks brought suit against in district court the county and alleged that the zoning regulations were unenforceable because their enforcement violated the Yurczyks’ substantive due-process rights, equal-protection rights, and their right to use, enjoy, and develop their property. A senior planner for the city and the County Commissioner were unable to identify any health concerns and only minimal safety concerns that the on-site construction provision addressed. Neither were able to identify what kind of general welfare interests the provision protected. The district court found that the Yurczyk’s substantive due-process rights were violated because the on-site construction requirement did not have a substantial bearing on the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community and was not based upon a legitimate government objective.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, 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 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 815,000 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 815,000 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