Maguire v. Reardon

Supreme Court

Maguire v. Reardon

255 U.S. 271, 41 S. Ct. 255, 65 L. Ed. 625, 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1822

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 28, 1921

Docket202

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 255 U.S. 271 (Maguire v. Reardon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maguire v. Reardon, 255 U.S. 271, 41 S. Ct. 255, 65 L. Ed. 625, 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1822 (1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendants in error, officers and agents of the City and County of San Francisco, purporting to act under an ordinance approved May 8, 1917, gave notice of their intention to demolish and remove a wooden building on Van Ness Avenue, the property of plaintiffs in error. Thereupon the latter instituted this proceeding for an injunction upon the ground, among others, that as the building was lawfully erected the ordinance violated the Federal Constitution.

The court below, following Bancroft v. Goldberg, Bowen & Co., 166 California, 416, held that the building was erected in 1906 within the fire limits theretofore prescribed in violation of valid local regulations duly enacted under the charter, and consequently there could be no reasonable doubt of the municipality’s power to direct its removal.

*273 The meaning and effect of the charter and ordinances thereunder are questions of local law determination of which by the state courts we commonly accept as conclusive. It is admitted that the building was constructed within defined fire limits, and the' Supreme Court of the State has said this was contrary to valid regulations then in force. The challenged ordinance must therefore be treated ás affecting an unlawful structure, and as so applied -we can find no plausible ground for holding it in conflict with the Federal Constitution. .

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Me. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendants in error, officers and agents of the City and County of San Francisco, purporting to act under an ordinance approved May 8, 1917, gave notice of their intention to demolish and remove a wooden building on Van Ness Avenue, the property of plaintiffs in error. Thereupon the latter instituted this proceeding for an injunction upon the ground, among others, that as the building was lawfully erected the ordinance violated the Federal Constitution.

The court below, following Bancroft v. Goldberg, Bowen & Co., 166 California, 416, held that the building was erected in 1906 within the fire limits theretofore prescribed in violation of valid local regulations duly enacted under the charter, and consequently there could be no reasonable doubt of the municipality’s power to direct its removal.

*273 The meaning and effect of the charter and ordinances thereunder are questions of local law determination of which by the state courts we commonly accept as conclusive. It is admitted that the building was constructed within defined fire limits, and the' Supreme Court of the State has said this was contrary to valid regulations then in force. The challenged ordinance must therefore be treated ás affecting an unlawful structure, and as so applied -we can find no plausible ground for holding it in conflict with the Federal Constitution. .

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 U.S. 271, 41 S. Ct. 255, 65 L. Ed. 625, 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maguire-v-reardon-scotus-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack