{"title":"Decision to Know: City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Stephen C. Myers","authors":"S. Villavaso","doi":"10.1080/15480755.2014.981139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Stephen Myers was leasing a single‐family residential property in an area zoned A‐1 within the city of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to four unrelated persons. Per Baton Rouge’s Unified Development Code (UDC) a “family” is defined as “an individual or two (2) or more persons who are related by blood, marriage or legal adoption living together . . . or not more than two (2) persons, or not more than four (4) persons (provided the owner lives on the premises rpar; living together by joint agreement. . . . ” (Myers at 9). In response, the city brought the action seeking to compel Myers to cease his alleged violation of the UDC, and Myers made a reconventional demand alleging the UDC’s definition of family was unconstitutional.","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"60 1","pages":"10 - 11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15480755.2014.981139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Stephen Myers was leasing a single‐family residential property in an area zoned A‐1 within the city of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to four unrelated persons. Per Baton Rouge’s Unified Development Code (UDC) a “family” is defined as “an individual or two (2) or more persons who are related by blood, marriage or legal adoption living together . . . or not more than two (2) persons, or not more than four (4) persons (provided the owner lives on the premises rpar; living together by joint agreement. . . . ” (Myers at 9). In response, the city brought the action seeking to compel Myers to cease his alleged violation of the UDC, and Myers made a reconventional demand alleging the UDC’s definition of family was unconstitutional.
Stephen Myers在路易斯安那州巴吞鲁日市a‐1区租给了四个不相关的人一套独户住宅。根据巴吞鲁日的统一发展法典(UDC),“家庭”被定义为“通过血缘、婚姻或合法收养生活在一起的个人或两(2)个或更多的人……”或不超过两(2)人,或不超过四(4)人(如果业主住在该处所);通过共同协议住在一起. . . .(Myers at 9)作为回应,市政府采取行动,试图迫使Myers停止他所谓的违反UDC的行为,Myers再次提出要求,称UDC对家庭的定义违宪。