Cheikh Gassama

Spea V220

MOORE v. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND, OHIO case brief

1. The name of the case: MOORE v. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND, OHIO

2. The name of the court: Supreme Court of the United States, 431 U.S. 494; 97 S. Ct.
1932; 52 L. Ed. 2d 531; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 17 Set of Legal Reporters: United States Supreme
Court Reporter; Year of decision: 1977.
3. Plaintiff[s]: City of East Cleveland, Ohio; claims in defense: the defendant is not in
compliance with city ordinance
4. Defendant[s: Inez Moore; their objective(s): to prove that the city ordinance in place is
unconstitutional and she should not be fined
5. Trial Court action: Judgment for plaintiff, City of Cleveland, Ohio
6. Complaint or issue:
a. Whether the Cleveland statute violates the due process law in the Fourteenth Amendment
b. Whether a housing ordinance limiting occupancy to a narrowly defined single family is
constitutional
7. Appeal outcome: The United States Supreme Court found the ordinance to be
unconstitutional in violation of substantial due process.
8. Facts of the case:

a. A Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance limited the occupancy within a housing unit to a
narrowly defined single family
b. Inez Moore challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance because her family failed to
comply with the legal definition of a single family established by Cleveland, Ohio
c. Moore housed her two grandsons who were first cousins but not brothers and because of
this she was considered to be violating the ordinance in place
d. One of Moores grandsons parents had passed away before living with Moore
e. Moore received a notice of violation of the city ordinance but failed to comply and remove
one of the children from the household
f. Moore was convicted to five (5) days in jail and a $25 dollar fines of the case:

9. Ratio Decidendi:
a. Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974): A zoning ordinance, which excludes more than
two unrelated people from living together does not violate the United States Constitution
b. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926): The ordinance must find its
justification in some aspect of the police power, which is asserted for the public welfare. The
court used the doctrine of nuisance to determine whether the zoning exclusions were proper.
c. Griswald v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 42 (1977):The right of privacy to a married couple is
protected by the United States Constitution
d. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972): The law compelling parents to send their
children to public school until the age of 16 is unconstitutional as applied because it
impermissibly interferes with the Amish religious beliefs

e. Fourteenth Amendment: Forbids any State to deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law or to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws
10. Rationale:
a. This case was distinguished from the Courts ruling in Belle Terre v. Borass, 416 U.S. 1
(1974), where an ordinance prohibiting unrelated people from living together was upheld.
This case, however, holds that related people have a fundamental right to live together.
b. The law affects related individuals and therefore Belle Terre is distinguished. Regulations
which deeply affect and separate a family are not incidental results, it makes a violator a
criminal for sustain the family unit. Yet, the family is not beyond regulation.
c. The citys goal seeking advancement, preventing overcrowding, traffic and parking
congestion, and the increased financial burden on the citys schools are legitimate.
d. But, the ordinances goals are served marginally at best b/c other families, as defined, may
burden those objectives and are excluded from scrutiny.
e. The freedom in personal choice matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties
protected by the Due Process Clause protected in the Fourteenth Amendment.

f. Regulations which deeply affect and separate family are not incidental results, it makes the
violator in to a criminal for maintaining a family household. The citys justification of the
statute was that it had a goal of preventing overcrowding in households and an increased
financial burden on the citys public school system. Ordinance goals can be seen as marginal

because other families that may burden those objectives as well and are excluded from
scrutiny.

The judgment affirming appellant's conviction of violating appellee's city ordinance by

housing a member of her extended family was reversed, because the ordinance violated
constitutional due process protections by intruding upon family sanctity and because the
ordinance had only a tenuous relationship to the alleviation of legitimate city goals.