Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002317 <br /> <br />40 <br /> <br />5-321.10 <br /> <br />JUDICln:. RBACTION <br /> <br />vious discussion" of general legal requirements. <br /> <br />~~~J <br /> <br />320. ,TUDICIAL ATTITUDE TO" PURPOSES OF REGULATION"" <br /> <br />321. Court Approval <br /> <br />Courts have often sanctioned subdivision regulations <br />adopted to serve broad public welfare objeotives. Some cases <br /> <br />lend specific support to regulations adopted to prevent fraud <br />and subdivision of lands unsuitable for intended use beoause <br /> <br />of flooding, waste disposal problems" or inadequate public <br /> <br />access. <br /> <br />321.10. Prevent Fraud <br /> <br />In a 1927 case the California Supreme Court upheld the <br /> <br /> <br />constitutionality of a California act desi9ned to prevent fraud <br /> <br /> <br />and misrepresentation by requiring review of land subdivisions <br /> <br />by a state agency. The court noted: <br /> <br />The objcot of the present law, prevention of <br />fraud and sharp praotices in a type of real <br />estate transactfon peculiarly open to such <br />abuses, is obviously legitimate; and the <br />method, "involving investigation and dis- <br />olosure of oertain essential facts, and a <br />protection for the innocentpurohaser.. .is <br />perfect-ly reasonable ."9 ' <br /> <br />In 1967 the Supreme Court of Colorado cited this case ''lith ap- <br />prova112nllpholding a similar "Registration of Subdivision <br /> <br />Developers" aot. <br />In a New Hampshire case, a federal court judge noted that <br />"it (a zoning ordinance) furnished a legal prohibition to <br />selling land, for a purpose which it is not in fact fit. This <br />, <br /> <br />was an eminently proper exercise of the city's police powers <br />i . f" .. d ,,11 <br />n order to protect poss2ble purChasers rom be2ng v1ct2m2ze . <br />A Florida court approved a plat act "designed to inform the <br />, f <br /> <br />i~;:;:::-_:_ <br />.::~:~:".. <br />