[Herein are excerpts of the two cases (1980 and 1981). Hometown Co-op
Apartments (in Hometown, Illinois) won the 1980 case and lost the
1981 case. The following are excerpts from the two reported cases.]
HOMETOWN CO-OPERATIVE APARTMENTS, an Illinois
Not-For-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HOMETOWN, a Municipal Corporation,
Defendant.
No. 79 C 2101.
United States District Court
N. D. Illinois, E. D.
May 19, 1980.
[From: 495 F. Supp. 55 (1980)] [See note 1.]
The owner of a group of co-operative apartments has brought a claim
under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended,
42 U.S.C. [Sec.] 1983, and under the fourth, fifth, and fifteenth
amendments to the constitution challenging the constitutionality of a
municipal building code ordinance. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
against the enforcement of the ordinance and a declaratory judgment
holding the ordinance to be unconstitutional and invalid. [page 56]
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
Pursuant to the ordinance the building department inspects the residence
for compliance with the Hometown building, housing, property maintenance,
and zoning codes. [footnote number omitted] [page 56]
.... .... .... .... .... ....
Summary judgment for plaintiff is granted. It is so ordered. [page 60]
______________________________________________
HOMETOWN CO-OPERATIVE APARTMENTS, an Illinois
not-for-profit Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HOMETOWN, a Municipal Corporation,
Defendant.
No. 80 C 5988.
United States District Court
N. D. Illinois, E. D.
May 26, 1981.
[From: 515 F. Supp. 502 (1981)] [See note 2.]
This is not the first time these parties have been before the court with
respect to the constitutionality of a Hometown ordinance that authorizes
point of sale inspections of residential property. Last year, the court
held that the predecessor of Hometowns's present ordinance was
"unconstitutional under the fourth amendment insofar as it fail[ed] to
provide for a warrant as a prerequisite for the point of sale inspection."
[page 503] .... Following our ruling, the City of Hometown amended its
ordinance... [page 503]
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
By providing for a warrant procedure in cases in which a new owner or
lessee of property refuses to consent to an inspection by the building
department, the City of Hometown has remedied the fatal flaw in its
earlier point of sale inspection ordinance. [page 504]
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
The plaintiff maintains, however, that the ordinance--even as amended--is
unconstitutional because it still has the effect of coercing involuntary
consent to a warrantless search... [page 504]
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in this opinion, defendant's
motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment is denied. It is so ordered. [page 505]
__________________________________________________
[End of case excerpts]
[The 1981 case was cited in a footnote in City of Vincennes v Emmons.]
[see note 3.]
FindLaw - The Law, Lawyer, Lawyers,
Attorney, Attorneys and Legal Resources
Cornell Law Library - Legal Research Encyclopedia
The OYEZ Project
Google Search: allintitle: "legal research" site:.edu
Google
Notes and Bibliography
1. The citation "495 F. Supp. 55 (1980)" refers to volume 495 of the
_Federal_Supplement, and page 55 is the first page of the case report.
2. The citation "515 F. Supp. 502 (1981)" refers to volume 515 of the
_Federal_Supplement, and page 502 is the first page of the case report.
3. The (1981) Hometown case was cited in City of Vincennes v Emmons
(2006). See page 4, note 6 in the following link: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01250601trb.pdf
The site which you are currently reading was designed and edited
by rksjr@cyberspace.org, and
web server access was provided by Grex.
Last Modified: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 circa 22:45 U.T.C.
(Coordinated Universal Time, also known as Zulu Time or
Greenwich Mean Time).
This file was begun on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 circa 00:55 U.T.C.