Case Law

Question 1

First Amendment

Answer 1

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association

Question 2

Fifth Amendment

Answer 2

Just compensation for takings

Question 3

Tenth Amendment

Answer 3

Defines the balance of power between the federal government and the states

Question 4

14th Amendment

Answer 4

Forbids states from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Question 5

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church vs. Los Angeles County

Answer 5

1987 - taking. Not upheld in court

Question 6

Lucas vs South Carolina Coastal Council

Answer 6

1992 - taking. Deny all economic use of property due to setbacks after hurricane. Settlement reached - state bought the lots, then sold for development

Question 7

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council vs Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Answer 7

2000 - a temporary moratorium is not a per se taking between 24-33 months

Question 8

Berman vs Parker

Answer 8

1954 - DC ‘urban renewal’ upheld- blighted private property may be taken for aesthetic and redevelopment purposes not just for public use

Question 9

Kelo vs City of New London

Answer 9

2005 - “pink house” proposed action is sufficient public purpose under 5th amendment and upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

Question 10

Nollan vs California Coastal Commission

Answer 10

1987 - an “exactions” case. Nolan wanted to demo an oceanfront bungalow and build bigger house. Nolan was required to contribute an easement for lateral public access along the beach.

Question 11

Dolan vs City of Tigard

Answer 11

1997 - Dolan wants to expand drug store, city imposes permit condition requiring easement for a bike path, 20% unbuildable. SCOTUS - rough propotionality

Question 12

Village of Belle Terre vs Boraas

Answer 12

1974 - Defines “family” to exclude student housing; not more than 2 unrelated persons living together, students sued. SCOTUS - referred to local government, allowed restriction to continue.

Question 13

Young vs American Mini Theaters

Answer 13

1976 - Detroit adopts zoning to disperse “adult entertainment” SCOTUS: law upheld, ‘speech’ is not absolute, involves “low-value speech”, okay to use zoning to control sexually explicit theaters and bookstores

Question 14

City of Renton vs Playtime Theaters

Answer 14

1986 - Seattle suburb prohibits ‘adult’ theaters within 1000 feet of residential, church, park or school; theater owner sues. Law upheld

Question 15

Metromedia, Inc vs City of San Diego

Answer 15

1981 - City banned billboards. SCOTUS: reached too far into the realm of protected speech - overturned the city

Question 16

Hadacheck vs Sabastian

Answer 16

1915 - LA divides city into 27 districts; pre-existing brickyard declared a “public nuisance” SCOTUS: upholds, no right to maintain a nuisance & no compensation for abatement; valid exercise of City’s police power.

Question 17

Police Power

Answer 17

Power of government to protect public health, safety and welfare.

Question 18

Munn vs Illinois

Answer 18

1876 - Illinois regulated grain warehouse and elevator rates by establishing license requirements and max rates for the storage and transport of grain. SCOTUS: upheld the state regulation extending to private industries that affect public interests.

Question 19

Who has police power?

Answer 19

Federal gov = NO
State gov = YES
Local gov = depends if the state is dillon’s rule or home rule.

Question 20

Federalism

Answer 20

Share of power between the national and state governments. US is a federation.

Question 21

Pennsylvania Coal vs Mahon

Answer 21

1878 - Coal company sells surface rights to Mahon but reserves right to remove subsurface coal.
1921 - State statue prohibits mining of coal if it causes subsidence of a residence. Mahon sues.
SCOTUS: Mahon loses, establishes concept of a “regulatory taking” PA Coal’s property rights were “taken” by the State, not Mahon’s. “if a regulation goes to far it will be recognized as a taking and compensation must be paid.

Question 22

Penn Central Transportation Co. vs City of New York

Answer 22

1978 - NYC Landmarks Preservation Law adopted & applied to protect Grand Central Station as a reaction to the demolition of Penn Station. City does not prohibit use of all of the rights of the property. SCOTUS: not a taking, regulation did not ‘go to far’

Question 23

Southern Burlington NAACP vs Town of Mt. Laurel

Answer 23

1975 - township uses police power to discourage blacks to stay in community, Church petitions for townhouses as “replacement” housing, township denies rezoning. NJ supreme court requires all municipalities to provide their fair share of regional need for affordable housing.
1983 - appealed

Question 24

Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)

Answer 24

Designed to prevent discrimination against the free exercise of religion by citizens vested with land use discretion or authority.

Question 25

Mugler vs Kansas

Answer 25

1877 - Bugler buys a brewery in Salina.
1880 - State Constitutional Amendment bans alcohol sales
1885 - statute declares liquor sales a “public nuisance” value of brewery reduced from $10,000 to $2,500. Mugler argues 14th amendment “taking” and “due process” violations
SCOTUS: ordnance upheld, state police power to protect the public health, etc. is not a taking

Question 26

Village of Euclid vs Ambler Realty Co.

Answer 26

1926 - Cleveland area village passes ordinances; Ambler’s property divided among 3 zoning districts; 75% reduction in value; owner claims 5th amendment “taking”, due process, and equal protection violations.
SCOTUS - defers to legislative authority, a law will be upheld if it is fairly debatable. Upholds Standard state planning/zoning enabling acts.

Question 27

Golden vs Town of Ramapo

Answer 27

1972 - Town expects rapid growth with opening of the TappenZee Bridge; adopts comprehensive plan; Golden applies for plat, refuses to build required improvements in advance of need.
Result - the ordinance is not in violation of the federal and state constitutions. First statement of power of a town to plan for its future.

Question 28

Construction Industry Association vs City of Petaluma

Answer 28

1975 - City experiences rapid growth, City comp plan rations the issuance of building permits at 500/year for 5 years and adopts a growth management boundary. Development industry sues in federal court 14th amendment due process
Result: Court upheld Petaluma’s right to preserve its small town character, open spaces and low density. Upheld by court of appeals: SCOTUS declines to review.

Question 29

Associated Home Builders of the Greater Eastbay Inc vs City of Livermore

Answer 29

1976 - City enacted an ordinance prohibiting the issuance of new res building permits until services complied with specified standards. Home builders argued that nonresidents had a right to move to the city and the law was in excess of the municipal police power
Result - CA supreme court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits

Question 30

Agins vs City of Tiburon

Answer 30

1980 - Agins acquired 5 acres of unimproved land for residential development. Zoning ordinance placed Agins property in a zone with density restrictions (1du/ac). Sued the city saying their property was taken without just compensation. Court upheld the city’s right to zone property at low-density and it was not a taking.

Question 31

Golden vs Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo

Answer 31

1972 - upheld an ordinance that made issuance of a development permit contingent on the presence of public facilities. Growth management case

Question 32

Nectow vs City of Cambridge

Answer 32

1928 - zoning case
Plaintiff sued for a mandatory injunction for a permit to erect a building without regard to the zoning ordinance, which zoned the land residential.
SCOTUS - found the invasion of the plaintiff’s property right was “serious and highly injurious”