Moore v. City of East Cleveland
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Moore_v._City_of_East_Cleveland an entity of type: Thing
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that an East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional. Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. ruled that the East Cleveland zoning ordinance violated substantive due process because it intruded too far upon the "sanctity of the family." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in which he agreed that the ordinance was unconstitutional, but he based his conclusion upon the theory that the ordinance intruded too far upon the Moore's ability to use her property "as she sees fit." Scholars have recognized Moore as one of several Supreme Court decisi
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Moore v. City of East Cleveland
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Inez Moore, Appellant, v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio
xsd:integer
19840750
xsd:integer
1120670182
rdf:langString
Stewart
rdf:langString
White
rdf:langString
Burger
rdf:langString
Rehnquist
<second>
172800.0
xsd:integer
494
xsd:integer
431
xsd:gMonthDay
--11-02
xsd:integer
1976
rdf:langString
Moore v. East Cleveland,
xsd:gMonthDay
--05-31
xsd:integer
1977
rdf:langString
Inez Moore, Appellant, v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio
rdf:langString
An East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional
rdf:langString
Moore v. City of East Cleveland
rdf:langString
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that an East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional. Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. ruled that the East Cleveland zoning ordinance violated substantive due process because it intruded too far upon the "sanctity of the family." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in which he agreed that the ordinance was unconstitutional, but he based his conclusion upon the theory that the ordinance intruded too far upon the Moore's ability to use her property "as she sees fit." Scholars have recognized Moore as one of several Supreme Court decisions that established "a constitutional right to family integrity."
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Brennan
rdf:langString
Marshall
rdf:langString
Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
rdf:langString
Powell
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
15156
