Hadacheck v. Sebastian

Although bad for business and not a taking of property under the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause of the Constitution, Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) said California aka Los Angeles, under its police power to regulate health, could shut down a brick business due to being declared a common law nuisance.

Here’s the facts of this case. It’s 1902 and the petitioner, Hadacheck, is fighting for his Clay Acre. Apparently, Hadacheck’s land was bought before city limits applied to it. The owner also had production equipment on the valuable clay land to make bricks. The owner claimed a Los Angeles ordinance targeted him and his brick business since brick making wasn’t regulated throughout the area.

Here’s the issue. Did the Los Angeles ordinance deprive the petitioner of his property and use?

This rule was established by the Supreme Court. The Cali ordinance did not unconstitutionally deprive the petitioner of his property and use without due process and equal protection within the city limits.

In the end, Hadacheck only wanted compensation for the taking of his property. Hadacheck wanted California to compensate him under the takings clause of the Constitution. But the Supreme Court said common law nuisances do not require the state to pay compensation, so Hadacheck was out a brick baking business in Los Angeles.

Leave a Reply