Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Karches v. City of Cincinnati
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Karches and Flerlage (Plaintiffs) both own riverfront properties located in the floodplains of Cincinnati. Karches acquired a lease to his property in 1957 and purchased it in 1965. At the time of acquisition, the property was zoned Business “B,” which allowed for commercial use. Flerlage purchased his property in 1958. At the time, Flerlage’s property was also zoned Business “B.” In 1963, the City of Cincinnati’s (City’s) planning commission changed the classification of Plaintiffs’ properties to RF-1 Riverfront. In 1977, Karches petitioned to change the zoning to RF-2, in the hopes of operating an aggregate storage terminal on his property. The City denied the request. In the early 1970s, Flerlage unsuccessfully attempted to operate a basin marina on his land. Flerlage thereafter began discussing possible zoning changes with the City without success. In 1980, Plaintiffssued, alleging the RF-1 zoning classification constituted an unconstitutional taking of their land. The City had previously conducted studies on the development of the riverfront area, seeking to promote economic development. The City indicated that Plaintiffs’ problems would be resolved once the City amended the RF-1 ordinance in 1983 pursuant to the results of the studies. In response, Plaintiffs dropped their suit. However, the 1983 revisions were unsatisfactory to Plaintiffs, and they once again filed suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court found that the RF-1 zoning, as amended, was unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory; that it was not substantially related to the public health, safety, or general welfare; and that it substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ use of their properties. The trial court therefore held the RF-1 zoning to be unconstitutional and ordered the City to rezone the property. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the constitutional issue was not ripe for judicial determination.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.