Legal Opinion

Davidson County v. Hoover

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1963PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Buenett

The question presented by this lawsuit is whether or not a beauty parlor is permitted under the Nashville Zoning Ordinance in a Besidential “B” District.

After a complaint was made the County Zoning Inspector visited the premises of the Hoovers and found they were operating a beauty parlor in their home. The Hoovers at that time were notified that such an operation was not permitted. Applications were made and seasonably denied through various departments of the county having jurisdiction of such matters and finally the Davidson County Board of Zoning Appeals denied the Hoovers’ application to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Board of Adjustment v. LevinsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1951
  2. Boreth v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Long v. City of Fort WorthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1960
  4. Vitale v. DunnettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
  5. City of Baton Rouge v. AllenLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1958

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. SimsCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 1995
  2. NAJO Equipment Leasing, LLC v. Commissioner of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2015
  3. Mack v. Board of AppealsNew York Supreme Court · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API