MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
75-6289
Appellee 
East Cleveland
Appellant 
Moore
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

East Cleveland's housing ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. Part of the ordinance was a strict definition of "family" which excluded Mrs. Inez Moore who lived with her son and two grandsons.

Question 

Did the housing ordinance violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion 
Decision: 5 votes for Moore, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

The four justices in the plurality held that the ordinance violated Moore's rights as it constituted "intrusive regulation of the family" without accruing some tangible state interest. Justice Stevens joined in the judgment and argued that the ordinance was invalid because, by regulating who could live with Moore, it constituted a taking of property without just compensation.

Cite this Page
MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 22 April 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_6289>.
MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_6289 (last visited April 22, 2014).
"MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed April 22, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_6289.