Brief of Moore v City of East Cleveland, Ohio 1. Name of Case: MOORE v CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND, OHIO 2. Name of Court: United States Supreme Court; Legal citation: 431 U.S. 494. Set of legal reporters; United States Supreme Court Reporter; Year of decision: 1977. 3. Plaintiff: Mrs. Inez Moore: their objectives: to dismiss her indictment, for violating a city ordinance by housing in her dwelling a grandson on the grounds: a. Housing a member of the extended family is not a violation of city ordinance. b. The Ordinance has no jurisdiction over family life. 4. Defendant: City of East Cleveland Ohio; claims in defense; defeat Plaintiffs motion to allow grandson in her dwelling. 5. Trial Court action: Judgment for the plaintiff, Inez Moore. 6. …show more content…
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: affirmed trial court’s Judgment for the defendant, CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [i.e. affirmed plaintiff’s convictions by the trial court]; b. United States Supreme Court: reverse Court of Appeals and trial court’s convictions of the plaintiffs. 8. Facts of the case: • Moore lived in her home together with her son Moore Dale and her two grandsons; John Moore and Moore jr. • John Moore joined the family after his mother had passed on. • John’s father had been living with Inez and her family until the trial period; it is however not clear whether he was living there when the citation was issued. His presence would also be a violation under the ordinance. The citation however points out that the violation occurred when Moore jr was living in the house. • In the beginning of 1973, Inez Moore received a notice of violation from the city; the notice stated that John Moore was an illegal occupant. • Inez ignored the notice by allowing John Moore to continue staying with her; this led the city to file a criminal charge against her. She then dismissed the charge on the grounds that it was unconstitutional on her face. • Her motion was however overruled and she was fined $25 and sentenced for five days. • Her constitutional claims were considered and affirmed by the Ohio Court of