The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, November 2, 1976
Decision: Tuesday, May 31, 1977
Issues: Economic Activity, Zoning
Categories: criminal, freedom of association, property, takings clause

Advocates

Not available

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

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.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Moore, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Due Process
Wrote a dissent
Burger
Wrote a regular concurrence
Brennan
Wrote a dissent
Stewart
Wrote a dissent
White
Voted with the majority, joined Brennan's concurrence
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Wrote the judgment of the Court
Powell
Voted with the minority, joined Stewart's dissent
Rehnquist
Wrote a special concurrence
Stevens
Judgment of the Court by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_6289/>
(last visited ).