Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CG AICP > 1: Law > Flashcards

1: Law Flashcards

1
Q

Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council

A

Denies a landowner all economically beneficial use and value of the land - supreme court ruled this a TAKING.

Lucas challenged the South Carolina Coastal Council after denied to do anything on his 2 beachfront lots.

Restrictions on use must show nexus to nuisance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v City of Los Angeles

A

US Supreme Court found that even a TEMPORARY TAKING requires compensation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Keystone Bituminous Coal v Debenedictis

A

5th amendment.

Supreme court states that government action designed to stop serious harm does not constitute a taking even where it destroys the value of property.

NOT a taking. Justified by all public interests.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

First amendment concerns what related to planning?

A

Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Regulation of Adult Entertainment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Supreme court case dealt with eminent domain and ability to take public property for private development?

A

Berman v parker (1954)-

Aesthetic value-

Used for basis for urban renewal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Metromedia v City of San Diego

A

Dealt with banning of commercial off-site billboards and therefore dealt with the 1st amendment of the United States.

Court ruled that cannot restrict non-commercial billboards.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Nectow v City of Cambridge (1928)

A

Supreme court case that found a ZONING ordinance was invalid as applied to a landowner whose land was restricted to residential uses because it did not promote health, safety, or general welfare.

Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v City of Livermore

A

Dealt with time PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT.

Questioned validity of ordinance which prohibited the issuance of further residential building permits until infrastructure facilities complied with specific standards.

Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Construction Industry Association of Sonoma Co v City of Petaluma

A

Building permit caps.
California case upholding PLANNED GROWTH REGULATION.

Appellees claimed the city plan was arbitrary and unreasonable.

Court found this was within public welfare to reflect small town character.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Mugler v Kansas

A

Early police power case

1887, US Supreme Court

To federal courts, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution merely imposes a duty to strike down legislative acts that have “no real or substantial relation” to the proper objects of the police power:

“protection of the public health, the public morals, or the public safety.” also aesthetics

In saying this, the Court validated state and local government actions that properly protect “the public health, the public morals, or the public safety.” (essentially validating police power)

Court validated state and local government actions that properly protect the public health, morals, and safety.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Just v. Marinette County dealt with what issue?

A

State shoreland program.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Spur Industries, Inc v. Del E Webb Dvlpt Co - important land use case because it provided discussion of which doctrine?

A

“Coming to the nuisance”-

Cattle field, people moved near them, complained about smell.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Which planning technique is implied in the Penn Central Transportation Co v City of New York case?

A

Transfer of development rights.
(Held valid NYC’s landmark preservation law as it applied to grand central terminal).

Prohibition of development above the terminal (the air rights) did NOT constitute a taking.

Takings are based on:
- extent of the diminution of the value
- interference with investment backed expectations
- character of government action

Restrictions on use are legal as long as there is still some commercial value.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

The arbitrary and unreasonable classification and zoning of a small parcel of land has been referred to by the courts as what?

A

Spot zoning - a small parcel of land set apart or carved out of a surrounding or large neighboring tract with little justification for the differential zoning is commonly called spot zoning.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Kelo v New London 2005

A

QUESTION: Taking of private property was serving a legit public use because it was eminent domain for private development.

It was a taking WITH just compensation.

was upheld - it was legitimate use of police power.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the standard to determine payment for property in condemnation payments?

A

Its highest & best use.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

“While property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking”

A

Pennsylvania Coal Co v Mahon

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Pennsylvania Coal Co v Mahon

A

1922 - landmark (1st) TAKINGS case - set forth the balancing of interest approach for reviewing taking claims.

Restrictions on use are not a taking provided they do not go too far

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

First landmark case with historic preservation

A

US v Gettysburg Electric Railway Co.

Acquisition of national battlefield served a valid public purpose.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Adverse Possession

A

a doctrine in which a person in possession of land owned by another person may acquire title to it as long as common law requirements are met and that person is in possession of the property for a sufficient period of time.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Agins v City of Tiburon & which takings test was established?

A

Fifth amendment case that relates to TAKINGS.

Ruled that the zoning in this case was NOT a taking.

Proved - regulation is a taking IF it deprives property of all economically viable use and fails to substantially advance legitimate public interests.

22
Q

Eminent Domain

A

provides governments with the power to take private land for public use with fair compensation

23
Q

Which concept did Fred French Investing Co v City of New York introduce for the first time?

A

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR).

5th amendment case.

The court found that TDR is an INAPPROPRIATE method to compensate the landowner for a taking by the City of New York.

In this case, the city required the placement of a public park on private property - was a taking but did not have to compensate.

24
Q

Golden V Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo dealt with which issue:

A

GROWTH MANAGEMENT. Governments can CONDITION DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL on the PROVISION OF SERVICES.

Upheld a zoning ordinance that made issuance of a development permit contingent on the presence of public facilities.

The Golden case marked the 1st time in the US that a town was legally approved to control its own growth.

25
Q

APA created this document to encourage states to revise their standard state zoning enabling acts:

A

The Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook.

26
Q

Eubank v City of Richmond (1912)

A

Zoning -

The court first approved use of setback regulations.
(Although overturned the setbacks in this case)

27
Q

Brant Revocable Trust v United States (2013)

A

Court found that the 1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement for the railroad’s land.

When the railroad 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.

28
Q

Lingle v Chevron

A

5th amendment.

Overturned a portion of the Agins v City of Tiburon precedent -

Declaring that regulation of property effects a taking if it does not substantially advance LEGITIMATE state interests. Court found that this part of the formula was imprecise & not appropriate for determining if a taking has occurred. Has to be based on SEVERITY OF BURDEN not the effectiveness of regulation in furthering government interest.

The other prong of Agins (denial of economically viable use) is unaffected - still valid.

29
Q

Euclid v Ambler (1926)

A

Zoning - 5th Amendment Case

Key question was whether the zoning ord violated the 14th amendment.
Key outcome: upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power - as long as there was a threat of a nuisance.

Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.

30
Q

Mass v EPA (2006)

A

Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate greenhouse gases.

31
Q

Federal Telecommunications Act (1996) requires that:

A

Local decisions must be based off substantial evidence & they must be rendered in a timely manner.

  • Local governments must not unreasonably discriminate among competing providers
  • Local governments must act on all wireless tower permit requests within a reasonable time
  • Any decision by a local council denying a wireless tower must be substantiated by evidence in writing.
32
Q

Nollan V California Coastal Commission, the court used which test to determine whether the access condition advanced a legitimate state interest?

A

Essential Nexus.

Required that an offer to dedicate a lateral public easement along Nollans’ beachfront lot.

33
Q

Hunter V Pittsburgh allowed what?

A

The ability for the state to be immune from local zoning.

“a public corporation or authority created by the state to carry out a function of the state is not bound by local zoning regulation”

34
Q

Hadacheck v Sebastian

A

ZONING case testing whether an LA zoning ordinance violated the 14th amendment due process & equal protection clauses.

Restriction of uses is NOT a taking.

Brick manufacturing plant in a specific location in the city did NOT violate the 14th amendment.

35
Q

Dolan v City of Tigard - what do municipalities have to do as a result of this case when they impose conditions on land use approvals for individual parcels?

A

The court found that the exaction on a property must be roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed land development.

  • Develop findings that quantify the projected impact of the project on public facilities.
  • Avoid requiring dedications that would restrict the property owner’s right to use a portion of the property.
  • Develop precise findings.

Concerns the extent to which the requirements are appropriately related to the scope and impact of the development project.

36
Q

Welch v Swasey (1909)

A

Right for municipalities to regulate building height

Proper exercise of police power
Does NOT violate equal protection & due process clause of 14th amendment

37
Q

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; U.S. Supreme Court (1999)

A

5th amendment

WAS taking - upheld an award for developers based on a denial for a permit for a 190-unit residential complex on ocean front property. WAS in conformance with city’s comp plan and zoning ordinance.

38
Q

FCC v Florida Power Corp (1987)

A

5th Amendment

Taking had not occurred.
Utilities said a fed statute that authorized the FCC to regulate rents charged by utilities to be taking without just compensation.

39
Q

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v County of LA (1987)

A

Taking if it deprives property of all economic use if it is unusable for a period of time.

Church camp due to flooding.

County could either purchase the property out-right or revoke the ordinance and pay the church for its losses during the time of the trial.

Found that $ damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking.

40
Q

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

A

5th amendment

The court found that where there is a physical occupation, there is a taking. The cable television company installed cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building and to serve other buildings. The property owner brought a class action suit claiming that allowing the cable company to occupy the land was a taking.

If regulation causes a physical invasion of privacy then it is a taking.

41
Q

Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

A

(1997)
5th Amendment.

Does owner have to attempt to sell their development rights before filing a regulatory takings suit?
NO.

42
Q

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

A

5th Amendment.
A moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation.

Moratoria imposed on development in Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comp plan for the area.

43
Q

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

A

Is government liable for a taking if it denies a permit until landowner dedicates land for a specific public use?

Court ruled - yes - in favor of Koontz.

44
Q

Village of Arlington Heights v Metro Housing Development Corporation

A

Had to do with integrating low-and moderate-income housing.

45
Q

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

A

Cities cannot define “family” so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other

46
Q

Cohen v. Des Plains (1990)

A

Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments; Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn’t

47
Q

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (II) (1983)

A

Regulations do not prevent a jurisdiction’s achieving a fair share of regional growth, but affirmative measures should be used to ensure that a fair share goal is reached

48
Q

Village of Belle Terre v Boraas (1974)

A

Upheld power to prohibit more than two unrelated individuals from residing together as a single family; thus extended concept of zoning under police power to include community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles

49
Q

Members of City Council v Vincent determined:

A

Aesthetics can satisfy advancing a legitimate public interest

50
Q

Most appropriate method to eliminate an existing adult use is:

A

An amoritization

CG AICP (27 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions