Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court case which upheld a temporary rent control law in the District of Columbia. It set a precedent in American law that government can regulate housing conditions during times of emergency to maintain or improve living conditions.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| |
rdfs:comment
| - Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court case which upheld a temporary rent control law in the District of Columbia. It set a precedent in American law that government can regulate housing conditions during times of emergency to maintain or improve living conditions. (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Block, Trading Under the Name of Whites, v. Hirsh (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| |
JoinDissent
| - White, Van Devanter, McReynolds (en)
|
JoinMajority
| - Brandeis, Clarke, Pitney, Day (en)
|
LawsApplied
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
Prior
| - Error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia (en)
|
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| |
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
findlaw
| |
fullname
| - Block, Trading Under the Name of Whites, v. Hirsh (en)
|
Holding
| - A federal statute, creating a commission with the power to set reasonable rents, and securing a tenant's right of occupancy beyond the expiration of his lease, was constitutional as a temporary emergency measure. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| |
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court case which upheld a temporary rent control law in the District of Columbia. It set a precedent in American law that government can regulate housing conditions during times of emergency to maintain or improve living conditions. Three years later, the rental property statute upheld in the case reached the Court for a second review. In , despite the language being the same, the statute was unanimously struck down in a decision where the Court held that the emergency necessitating the measure had passed, and that that which "justified interference with ordinarily existing property rights as of 1919 had come to an end by 1922." (en)
|
cornell
| |
openjurist
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |