1 Fundamental: Law Flashcards
Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909)
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.
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912)
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.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915)
The U.S. Supreme Court 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 a valid police power purpose.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926)
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. The key outcome of the court was that it upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928)
Two years after Euclid v. Ambler, the Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance 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.
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972)
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
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma (1975)
The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976)
The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013)
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.
Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)
The Court found that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court (2006).
The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
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
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1976)
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.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981)
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.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986)
The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district in Seattle. The Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic and crime), not the content. Distance separation or concentration requirements for adult uses is OK if the regulation serves a substantial governmental interest and leaves open alternative methods of communication
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores (see below),
Land use regulations may not impose a “substantial burden” on religious assemblies:
Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona (2015)
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
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; U.S. Supreme Court (1896)
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.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (1922)
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.
Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954)
The Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978)
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.
Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980)
The appellants had acquired five acres of unimproved land for residential development. The zoning ordinance placed the appellants’ property in a zone with density restrictions (one single-family residence per acre). The appellants brought suit against the city in state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional. The Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982)
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
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
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
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
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.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; U.S. Supreme Court (1997)
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.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992)
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.
Dolan v. City of Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994)
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.”
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001)
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..
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; U.S. Supreme Court (2002) T
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.
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)
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.
Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court (2005)
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”)
Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management (2012)
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.
Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court (1876)
The Court found that the regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good.
Mugler v. Kansas; US Supreme Court (1887)
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.”
Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court (1974)
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.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court (1977)
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
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975)
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.
In the U.S., state police power comes which amendment?
10th amendent.
States where the rights of cities are only those that have been specifically authorized by the state?
Dillon’s rule
States are those in which cities have the right to develop their own regulations, except where the state has specifically stated otherwise?
Home Rule
