Keys Youth Services v. City of Olathe
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
248 F.3d 1267 (2001)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Keys Youth Services, Inc. (Keys) (plaintiff) operated group homes. Keys purchased a house in Olathe City (defendant), Kansas, to establish a group home for 10 troubled adolescent males. The house was in a neighborhood zoned for single-family residential use. Olathe’s relevant definition of a family included eight or fewer disabled persons and two guardians. Keys did not qualify as a family under Olathe’s definition, so Keys applied for a special-use permit for the proposed home. In response to Keys’ application, the neighbors filed a protest petition with the Olathe Planning Commission. The neighbors argued that the troubled adolescents would increase crime, decrease property values, and pose a threat to children in the area. The commission recommended to the Olathe City Council that Keys’ application be denied. Keys sued Olathe, alleging state-law claims and that Olathe and city council members denied the special-use permit based on the potential occupants’ familial status and handicaps in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The district court granted summary judgment for Keys’ familial-status claim and granted summary judgment for Olathe on Keys’ handicap-status claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKay, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

