THELMA A. DIEDRICH ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ZONING COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Commission's denial of a zoning map amendment was not arbitrary or capricious, and thus affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Property owners applied for an amendment to a zoning map promulgated by the Commission. The Commission declined the application after a public hearing…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Zoning cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In respect to zoning, Congress by statute 1 created a Commission which it empowered to control, among other things, the population dénsity throughout the District of Columbia and for that purpose to prepare comprehensive plans and publish maps depicting the plans. Many factors were mentioned in the statute, including congestion in the streets, safety from fire, panic and other dangers, health, light, air, transportation, civic activity, recreation, education, and so on. Such a map, depicting the area here involved, was promulgated in 1958 as part of comprehensive zoning changes in the City.
On November 27, 1965 (some seven years thereafter) appellant-owners applied to the Commission for an amendment to the map.2 The Commission, after public hearing, declined. The owners sued in the District Court for a mandatory injunction. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial judge denied plaintiffs’ motion and entered judgment for the Commission. This appeal followed. We affirm. The functions of the Commission in preparing and promulgating plans and maps are obviously exercises of judgment legislative in character and are subject to judicial control only if arbitrary or capricious.3 Since we cannot say that the challenged action was devoid of evidentiary support or irrational, we are obliged to affirm.
Affirmed.
. D.C.Code § 5-413 (1967).
. D.C.Code § 5-415 (1967).
. Lewis v. District of Columbia, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 72, 74, 190 F. 2d 25, 27 (D.C.Cir. 1951).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chesley Karr v. Schmidt, 460 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
The Citizens Ass'n OF Georgetown, Inc. v. Zoning Comm'n OF the Dist. OF Columbia, 477 F.2d 402 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
-
Higginbotham v. Barrett, 473 F.2d 745 (5th Cir. 1973)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lewis v. Dist. OF Columbia, 190 F.2d 25 (D.C. Cir. 1951)