Legal Opinion

Nectow v. City of Cambridge

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided May 14, 1928No. 509PublishedCited by 559 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sutherland

A zoning ordinance of the City of Cambridge divides the city into three kinds of districts: residential, business and unrestricted. Each of these districts is sub-classified in respect of the kind of buildings which may be erected. The ordinance is án elaborate one, and of the same general character as that considered by this Court in Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U. S. 365. In its general scope it is conceded to be constitutional within that decision. The land of plaintiff in error was put in district R-3, in which are permitted only dwellings, hotels, clubs, churches, schools,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Zahn v. Board of Public WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. Nectow v. City of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927

3Cited by559 opinions

  1. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. Moore v. City of East ClevelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Mayhew v. Town of SunnyvaleTexas Supreme Court · 1998

554 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API