Connection lost
Server error
Nectow v. City of Cambridge Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A landowner challenged a zoning ordinance that placed a strip of his land in a residential zone, rendering it practically useless due to surrounding industrial uses. The Supreme Court found the ordinance unconstitutional as applied to that specific property.
Legal Significance: This case established the principle of an “as-applied” constitutional challenge to zoning. A regulation, though generally valid, can be unconstitutional if its application to a specific parcel is arbitrary and bears no substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Nectow, owned a 140,000-square-foot tract of land in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The city enacted a comprehensive zoning ordinance that classified a 100-foot-wide strip of Nectow’s land (the locus) as strictly residential. The remainder of Nectow’s tract and the adjacent land to the south and east were zoned as unrestricted and were occupied by industrial uses, including a Ford Motor Company assembly plant, a soap factory, and railroad tracks. Land to the north and west was residential. Prior to the ordinance, Nectow had a contract to sell the property for $63,000, but the purchaser refused to complete the sale due to the new zoning restrictions. A court-appointed master conducted a hearing and viewed the property, ultimately finding that “no practical use can be made of the land in question for residential purposes” and that enforcing the residential restriction on this specific parcel would not promote the public health, safety, or general welfare. The Massachusetts high court upheld the ordinance, and Nectow appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a zoning ordinance violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when, as applied to a specific parcel of land, it imposes a restriction that renders the property of little practical value and bears no substantial relation to the public health, safety, or general welfare?
Yes. The judgment of the state court was reversed. The Court held Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a zoning ordinance violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when, as applied to a specific parcel of land, it imposes a restriction that renders the property of little practical value and bears no substantial relation to the public health, safety, or general welfare?
Conclusion
Nectow v. City of Cambridge serves as a crucial limitation on the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor
Legal Rule
The governmental power to interfere with the general rights of a landowner Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo con
Legal Analysis
The Court began by reaffirming the general principle from *Euclid v. Ambler Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A zoning ordinance that is generally constitutional may still be unconstitutional