1 Fundamental: Law

Question 1

Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909)

Answer 1

Holding: The Supreme Court upheld a Boston zoning ordinance limiting building heights, ruling it a valid exercise of police power that did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
This case does not violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Question 2

Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912)

Answer 2

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Richmond ordinance allowing a small group of property owners to set building setback lines, ruling it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by delegating legislative power to private individuals.

Question 3

Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915)

Answer 3

Upheld a Los Angeles ordinance prohibiting brick manufacturing in certain areas, ruling that land-use restrictions do not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment if they serve public welfare.

Question 4

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926)

Answer 4

The key question before the court was whether the Village of Euclid’s zoning ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the constitution. Modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.

Question 5

Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928)

Answer 5

Two years after Euclid v. Ambler, the Court struck it down because it had no valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public). The Court ruled that it was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Question 6

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972)

Answer 6

The court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. This case set a precedent for growth management planning

Question 7

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma (1975)

Answer 7

The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued

Question 8

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976)

Answer 8

The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.

Question 9

Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013)

Answer 9

The Court found that the 1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement for the railroad’s land. When the railroad company abandons the land, it should be settled as an easement and if the easement is abandoned, the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.

Question 10

Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 10

The Court found that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.

Question 11

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court (2006).

Answer 11

Hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act

Question 12

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)

Answer 12

The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron deference doctrine, determining that courts must independently interpret statutes without deferring to agency interpretation This landmark decision shifts interpretive authority from federal agencies to the judiciary, potentially leading to increased legal challenges to regulatory actions and significant impacts on administrative law

Question 13

Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1976)

Answer 13

The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit. Speech is not absolute and it’s ok to use zoning control sexually explicit theaters and bookstores.

Question 14

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981)

Answer 14

The Court found that commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs.

Question 15

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986)

Answer 15

Upheld zoning restrictions on adult theaters, ruling they are valid if they serve a substantial government interest (e.g., preventing secondary effects like crime) and leave alternative avenues for expression.

Question 16

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores (see below),

Answer 16

Land use regulations may not impose a “substantial burden” on religious assemblies:

Question 17

Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona (2015)

Answer 17

Pastor Reed rented space in an elementary school and placed signs in the area announcing the time and location of the church services. The Court held that the restrictions were subject to strict scrutiny because they were content-based restrictions, or restrictions that were applied differently depending on the message of the sign

Question 18

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; U.S. Supreme Court (1896)

Answer 18

The Court ruled that the acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose. This was the first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation.

Question 19

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (1922)

Answer 19

The Court found that if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. This was the first takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th Amendment.

Question 20

Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954)

Answer 20

The Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.

Question 21

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978)

Answer 21

The Court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking. The Court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. The Court weighed the economic impact of the regulation on investment-backed expectations and the character of the regulation to determine whether the regulation deprives one of property rights.

Question 22

Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980)

Answer 22

The Court established a two-part test to determine whether a regulation is a taking:
Substantial Government Interest: The regulation must advance a legitimate government interest (e.g., protecting open space, preserving community character).
Reasonable Relationship: The regulation must be reasonably related to the government’s interest.

Question 23

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982)

Answer 23

The cable television company installed cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building and to serve other buildings. A physical invasion, no matter how
small, is a taking & requires compensation

Question 24

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 24

The Court found that if a property is unusable for a period of time, then not only can the ordinance be set aside, but the property owner can subject the government to pay for damages. US Supreme Court found that even a TEMPORARY TAKING requires compensation

Question 25

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 25

The question before the Court was whether the California Coastal Commission’s requirement that owners of beachfront property seeking a building permit need to maintain beachfront access constitutes a property taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Exactions must demonstrate an “essential nexus” to a legitimate state interest.

Question 26

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; U.S. Supreme Court (1997)

Answer 26

The petitioner owned an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe, and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency found that the lot could not be developed under the agencies' regulations, but that Suitum could sell the development rights under the Transfer of Development Rights program. The Court ruled that Suitum did not have to attempt to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking suit.

Question 27

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992)

Answer 27

The Court found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value after the regulation is in place. This is a taking since it it denied all economic use. Restrictions on use must show nexus to nuisance.

Question 28

Dolan v. City of Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994)

Answer 28

The Court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain (to create a greenway and bicycle path) by a commercial business that wanted to expand. The Court found that there was not enough of a connection between the exaction requirement and the development. The "rough proportionality" test was created from this case: "an exaction is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use."

Question 29

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001)

Answer 29

The question before the Court was whether a property owner who acquired title to a property after regulations were in place could still bring a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment. The property owner claimed inverse condemnation against the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council because the landowner was denied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club. The Supreme Court found that acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims..

Question 30

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; U.S. Supreme Court (2002) T

Answer 30

Two moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comprehensive plan for the area. A group of property owners sued, claiming a taking. The Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation.

Question 31

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)

Answer 31

The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent (see above) declaring that regulation of property does effect a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. The Court found that Takings clause challenges had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furthering the governmental interest.

Question 32

Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court (2005)

Answer 32

Upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development purpose to taking private land. The political reaction to Kelo is the real story (“The Legend of Little Pink house”)

Question 33

Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management (2012)

Answer 33

Mr. Koontz requested a permit from the St. John's River Water Management to develop additional land beyond what was allowed under the original permit. St. John's agreed to issue the development permit on the condition that Koontz deed the rest of his property into a conservation area and complete additional mitigation work. Koontz refused to undertake the mitigation work and St. John's denied the application. The key question facing the Court was whether the government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until a landowner agrees to dedicate land for public use. The Supreme Court found in favor of Koontz, noting that there was no specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work and that a taking had occurred.

Question 34

Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court (1876)

Answer 34

The Court found that the regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good.

Question 35

Mugler v. Kansas; US Supreme Court (1887)

Answer 35

The Court found that a state law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. "A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking."

Question 36

Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court (1974)

Answer 36

The Court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single-family. The court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values. The Court thus extended the concept of zoning under the police power to include a community's desire for certain types of lifestyles.

Question 37

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court (1977)

Answer 37

The court reviewed a zoning case that denied a rezoning of a property from single-family to multi-family. Negative racial impact without proof of discriminatory intent does not violate 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, but Fair Housing Act may apply

Question 38

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975)

Answer 38

The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing. The Court required the town to open its doors to those of all income levels.

Question 39

In the U.S., state police power comes which amendment?

Answer 39

10th amendent.

Question 40

States where the rights of cities are only those that have been specifically authorized by the state?

Answer 40

Dillon's rule

Question 41

States are those in which cities have the right to develop their own regulations, except where the state has specifically stated otherwise?

Answer 41

Home Rule