Prentiss v. Am. Univ. Wrather v. Am. Univ., 214 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1954).
Search
Prentiss v. Am. Univ. Wrather v. Am. Univ., 214 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1954). Book View Copy Cite
PRENTISS Et Al.
v.
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Et Al.; WRATHER Et Al. v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Et Al.
11942, 11943.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jul 21, 1954.
214 F.2d 282
Messrs. Harry L. Walker and John Hampton Baumgartner, Jr., Assistant Corporation Counsel, Washington, D. C., for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Vernon E. West, Corporation Counsel, Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Chester H. Gray, Principal Asst. Corporation Counsel, Oliver Gasch, Principal Asst. U. S. Atty., and Milton D. Korman, Asst. Corporation Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants Prentiss et al., Mr. James C. Wilkes, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Norman M. Glasgow and George A. Glasgow, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants Wrather et al., Messrs. E. F. Colladay and D. C. Colla-day, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. James R. Stoner, Washington, D. C., was 0n the briefs, for appellee The American University. Mr. Calvin G. Dworshak, Washington, D. C., entered an appearanCe for appellee American University., ,Messrs. Paul B. Cromelm and Thomas M. Raysor, Washington, D. C., for apWebb Hayes National Traingchool fQr Deaconesses and Missionaries, Mr. Andrew T. Altmann, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Clyde D. Garrett, Washington, D. C., was on the briefs, for appellee Equitable Life Ins. Co.
Edgerton, Filler, Bazelon.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

An order of the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia rezonod the campus of The American University from residential “A” to residential “A restricted”. The immediate effect of the order was to prevent the building on the campus of a hospital to be maintained in connection with a School of Nursing.

[*283] “The governmental power to interfere by zoning regulations with the general rights of the land owner by restricting the character of his use, is not unlimited, and. other questions aside, such restriction cannot be imposed if it does not bear a substantial relation to the public health,, safety, morals, or general welfare.” Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 188, 48 S.Ct. 447, 448, 72 L.Ed. 842. In the District Court, Judge Holtzoff found that the restriction which the rezoning order would impose on the University’s right to use its land did not meet this requirement. He therefore found the order unconstitutional, and set it aside, as taking the University’s property without due process of law. 1 D.C., 113 F.Supp. 389. We think he was clearly right. The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.