AICP Top 25 Cases in Planning & Environmental Law Flashcards
Pennsylvania Coal Co v. Mahon (1922)
Supreme Court of the United States held that whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property.
The decision thereby started the doctrine of regulatory taking. The Takings Clause originally applied only when the government physically seized or occupied property. Prior to 1922, American courts followed a clear rule: regulation of land was not a taking. Rather, it was simply an exercise of the government’s police power to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and morals.
Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope (1968)
Legitimized the planned unit development (PUD) process.
An ordinance creating a planned unit development district and authorizing the planning commission to approve the type, size and location of buildings and uses within the district was not a violation of the municipal comprehensive plan or an illegal delegation of legislative power to the commission.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)
Established the “hard look” doctrine for environmental impact review.
Private Citizens and local and national conservation groups successfully challenged the decision of the Secretary of Transportation to authorize the use of federal funds to finance the construction of a highway through Overton Park in Memphis, Tennessee. Under §4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and §138 of the Federal –Aid Act of 1968, the Secretary may not authorize the expenditure of federal funds for a highway through a public park if a “feasible and prudent” alternative exists, and if no alternative route exists, he may approve construction only if there has been “all possible planning to minimize harm” to the park.
Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (1971)
Made National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements judicially enforceable.
Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)
Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies.
Golden v. Planning Board of Rampo (1972)
Zoning ordinances, allowing subdivision development only by special permit upon showing that adequate municipal facilities and services were available or would be provided by the developer, constituted a rational attempt to provide for sequential and orderly residential development in conjunction with the needs of the community and its ability to supply public facilities.
Just v. Marinette County (1972)
Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme.
Shoreland zoning ordinance providing for the creation of conservancy, recreational and general purpose districts along navigable streams and other bodies of water upheld as constitutional. A landowner has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential natural character of his land so as to use it for a purpose for which it was unsuited in its natural state and which injures the rights of others.
Fascano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County (1973)
Required zoning to be consistent with comprehensive plans and recognized that rezoning may be quasi-judicial as well as legislative.
Because rezoning to permit a large mobile home PUD determined the rights of only a few landowners, the action was adjudicatory rather than legislative in character and the presumption of validity normally afforded local legislative acts did not apply. In such cases, the burden of justifying the rezoning falls on the party seeking the change, who must show that the change will be in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc. (1976)
Opened up the possibility to control pornography via land use.
Special requirements applicable to adult theatres and bookstores upheld.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., (1977)
Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts.
The disproportionate racial impact of the village’s refusal to grant rezoning necessary to allow construction of low-income housing is not sufficient to prove violation of the Equal Protection Clause, absent evidence of racially discriminatory intent.
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978)
Created modern Endangered Species Act law protecting the snail darter.
Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision held that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits the completion and operation of the Tellico Dam.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978)
It established a new taking test and decided that the economic impact on Penn Central was not severe enough to constitute a taking because Penn Central could continue with its present use whose return, it conceded, was not unreasonable. Since the regulation did not interfere with its reasonable investment-backed expectations it was not considered a taking.
Restrictions on the development of the Grand Central Terminal did not amount to a taking of property, since Penn Central could transfer the development rights to the other properties and a reasonable return on the property was allowed. The US Supreme Court ruled.
Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980)
Used an alternative takings test to the Penn Central test.
U.S. Supreme Court rules that the open space zoning ordinance of the city of Tiburon, California, does not result in a taking of property without payment of just compensation.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981)
Extended Commercial speech to aesthetic regulation.
Ordinance that substantially restricted both commercial and noncommercial off-site billboards as well as noncommercial on-site billboards held unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Loretto v. Telepromter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982)
Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimis.
State law that required landlords to permit installation of cable television facilities on their property constituted a taking because it was a physical invasion of permanent duration.
