Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P owns 90 acres of land in Scott Township, Pennsylvania, a small community just north of Scranton. P lives in a single-family home on the property and uses the rest of the land as a grazing area for horses and other farm animals. The property includes a small graveyard where the ancestors of P’s neighbors are allegedly buried. Such family cemeteries are fairly common in Pennsylvania, where “backyard burials” have long been permitted. D passed an ordinance requiring that “all cemeteries . . . be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours.” The ordinance defined a “cemetery” as “[a] place or area of ground, whether contained on private or public property, which has been set apart for or otherwise utilized as a burial place for deceased human beings.” D found several grave markers on P’s property and notified her that she was violating the ordinance by failing to open the cemetery to the public during the day. P sought declaratory and injunctive relief in state court on the ground that the ordinance affected a taking of her property. P did not seek compensation for the taking by bringing an “inverse condemnation” action under state law. D withdrew the violation notice and agreed to stay enforcement of the ordinance during the state court proceedings. The court declined to rule because, without an ongoing enforcement action, P could not demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for equitable relief. P filed an action in Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that the ordinance violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court dismissed P's under Williamson County because she had not pursued an inverse condemnation action in state court. The Third Circuit noted that the ordinance was “extraordinary and constitutionally suspect,” but affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co