KARCHES V. CITY OF CINCINNATI 526 N.E.2d 1350 (1988) CASE BRIEF

KARCHES V. CITY OF CINCINNATI

526 N.E.2d 1350 (1988)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Karches (P) appealed a judgment which reversed a lower court and found that P's suit alleging City's (D) zoning ordinance was unconstitutional was not ripe.

FACTS: Karches (P) owns property that borders the Ohio River with approximately seven hundred twenty feet of river frontage and is in the floodplain. Flerlage (P) own approximately twenty-seven acres that borders the Ohio River, is in the floodplain and has approximately twelve hundred feet of river frontage. Both properties have flooded in the past. Both properties had been zoned for commercial use. In 1963, D changed the classification of the properties from Business 'B' (industrial) to RF-1 Riverfront. Ps did not receive written notice of the change, of which they did not learn until 1966 and 1968, respectively. Karches (P) contacted an attorney and discovered that the statute of limitations had run on an appeal from the rezoning. Flerlage (P) discussed zoning changes with D numerous times over the next several years in an attempt to make use of their land. On November 12, 1980, Ps filed suit alleging that the RF-1 zoning ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to their property and was a taking of their property requiring just compensation. Ps dismissed the lawsuit with the hope that a new 1983 ordinance would fix the issues. Ps sued again in 1983. Ps alleged that the RF-1 zoning precluded them from developing their properties in an economical manner and that as a result of the restrictive zoning, the properties had no market value other than one for speculative purposes. Ps alleged that the RF-1 zoning, as applied to their specific properties, had no reasonable relation to the public health, safety and welfare; was arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable; and, therefore, deprived them of their properties without due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Ps sought declaratory relief pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2721 and permanent injunctive and other relief. The court found for Ps and ordered D to rezone within 60 days. The court of appeals reversed in that the issue of constitutionality was not ripe for determination. Ps appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner