Case Law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is the holding from Juliana v. United States?

A

Individuals have a fundamental constitutional right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life. Accordingly, a claim that the federal government has affirmatively and substantially harmed that system in such a way that the system becomes unable to sustain human life is cognizable.

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

What is the holding from Matthews v. Bayhead Improvement Association?

A

Under the public-trust doctrine, private landowners must give the public reasonable access to both the foreshore and some dry sand.

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

Under Matthews v. Bayhead Improvement Association, what right does the public have to access private beaches?

A

The public is entitled to reasonable access to the foreshore. This is determined on a case by case basis using factors like

how much dry sand is already publicly available,

how close a dry-sand area is to the foreshore,

the nature and extent of the public demand for access, and

how a beach’s owner is using the dry-sand area.

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

In Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach, what doctrine was used?

A

The doctrine of custom.

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

What is the holding from Pierson v. Post?

A

Property in wild animals is acquired by occupancy, meaning at least mortally wounding or capturing from a distance, and at most physical possession. Mere pursuit of a wild animal does not vest property rights in the pursuer.

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

What was the holding from State v. Shack

A

The ownership of real property does not include the right to refuse access to individuals providing government services to workers who are housed on the property. Rights in real property are not absolute and are limited by the maintenance of the well-being of those people that the owner permits on his land.

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

What was the holding in Shelley v. Kramer?

A

State court enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant constitutes state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

Are Racially Restrictive Covenants unconstitutional?

A

No! But enforcement of them by a court is unconstitutional. State court enforcement of racially restrictive covenants constitutes state action, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

What is the holding in Miller v. Schoene?

A

If a state is forced to make a choice between saving one of two types of property, the state does not violate the Due Process Clause by deciding upon the destruction of one class of property in order to save another which, in the legislature’s judgment, is more valuable to the public.

Giving preference to a public interest over the private interest of a property owner is a valid exercise of a state’s police power, even if the ultimate result is the destruction of the private property owner’s interest.

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

What is the holding in Kelo v. City of New London?

A

A state’s use of eminent domain to condemn property from private individuals and redistribute it to other private individuals constitutes a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment if it is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.

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

What is the holding in Penn Central v. New York City?

A

In determining whether a state regulation constitutes a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, courts should consider
* the economic impact of the regulation on the owner,
* the extent to which the regulation has interfered with the owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations, and
* the character of the government action involved in the regulation.

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

What is the holding from Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council?

A

A state regulation that completely deprives private property of all its economic value constitutes a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that requires the payment of just compensation to the property owner, unless the economic activity prevented by the regulation is not part of the owner’s initial title or property rights when acquiring the property.

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

What is the holding from Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

A

(1) A landowner who acquires land after regulations take effect may still raise a regulatory-takings claim. (2) A takings claim must be ripe to be viable.

A landowner who acquires land after regulations take effect may still raise a regulatory-takings claim. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, made applicable to states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without providing just compensation. A taking can be physical or regulatory. There are two types of regulatory takings. The first type arises if government regulations deny all economically beneficial or productive use of a property. The second type, known as a Penn Central taking, after Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), arises if government regulations do not deny all economically beneficial use but still impose unreasonably burdensome limitations on use. When assessing a Penn Central takings claim, courts consider the regulation’s economic impact on the landowner, the extent of interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the nature of the government action. A landowner who acquires land after regulations take effect can still raise a regulatory-takings claim. Unreasonably burdensome regulations do not become any less unreasonable or onerous simply because time passes or the property changes hands. To hold otherwise would allow states to put an expiration date on the Takings Clause’s restriction of their power. Also, when landowners sell their land, they are transferring their full rights to the new owners, including any right to challenge land-use regulations under the Takings Clause.

(2) A takings claim must be ripe to be viable. For both types of regulatory-takings claims, a claim is ripe only once the relevant state agency has issued a final decision regarding the application of regulations to the property. Because agencies often have broad discretion in applying land-use regulations, it is impossible for a court to evaluate regulations’ impact before a final decision about how the regulations will be applied.

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

What is the holding from Just v. Marinette County?

A

A landowner does not have an absolute and unlimited right to change the essential, natural character of the land to use it for an unsuitable and unnatural purpose that would injure the rights of others.

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

What is the holding from Esplanade v. Seattle?

A

A municipality’s deprivation of all beneficial use of a landowner’s property does not constitute a taking if the uses were already prohibited by state law. Under federal and state law, a plaintiff alleging a taking must make a showing of causation between the government action and alleged deprivation. A deprivation by the government of all beneficial uses of one’s property results in a taking unless state law would have already deprived the property owner of such uses.

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

What is the holding from Nollan v. California Coastal Commission?

A

A permit condition may constitute a taking if there is not an essential nexus connecting the imposition of the condition to a legitimate state interest in solving a problem relating to the development.

17
Q

What is the holding from Dolan v. City of Tigard?

A

The government may not, without just compensation, place land use conditions on an approval of a private property development plan unless there is a “rough proportionality” between the conditions and the impact of the proposed development.

18
Q

What is the holding from Koontz v. St. Johns?

A

The government’s demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must have a nexus and rough proportionality between the demand and the effects of the proposed land use even when the government denies the permit and even when the government’s demand is for money.

19
Q

What is the holding from Sierra Tahoe Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency?

A

A temporary moratorium on development imposed for the purpose of developing a comprehensive land-use plan does not constitute a per se taking of property for public use requiring the payment of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

20
Q

What are the rules from Johnson v. McIntosh?

A
  • Tribes have right of occupancy
  • Federal gov’t has right of discovery
  • Tribes’ property rights are inalienable—can transfer land only w/ permission of federal gov’t, otherwise grant is void
  • Where tribes cede land to the federal gov’t, the title becomes complete & federal gov’t can then sell or grant to others
21
Q

What are the Matthews factors?

A
  1. Location of the dry sand area in relation to the foreshore.
  2. Extent and availability of publicly owned upland sand area.
  3. Nature and extent of the public demand.
  4. Usage of the upland sand area by the owner (is it an orphanage or a private equity warlord hideout?)
22
Q

Summarize the penn central test

A

o Penn central – dominant case law – looks at 3 factors to determine if there is taking
 Diminatio in value
 Reasonable investment backed expectations
 Character of taking

23
Q

summarize the lucas test

A

o Lucas test – per se categorical exception to Penn – where there is total dimunation of value, compensation is required unless restrictions inhere in the tile that restrict this activity. (PTD, nuisance, etc)

24
Q

Summarize the hybrid takings framework

A

 Hybrid taking – Gov has power to deny permit but uses that power to get something it wants from the property interests
* 2 rules –
o Nolan – must be a nexus between the harm permitted and the exaction taken
o Dolan – rough proportionality between the harm permitted and the exaction taken
* Kootnz – combines Nolan and Dolan tests
o R: “Gov’t may condition a land use permit on the relinquishment of real property (exaction) only if it shows a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the demand made and the impact of the proposed development”

25
Q

What is the rule from Just v. Marinette county?

A

An owners right to economic use is not unlimited - therefore they should have no reasonable expectation to build - no taking.

Natural use test - owner was trying to change the natural state of land and use it in a way that was unsuitable to its natural state.
Prop owners’ expectations must shape to natural state of land, not the other way around.

26
Q

What is the rule from Palazzalo v. Rhode island?

A

regulation already in place when prop owner purchased prop. can owner still make a takings claim?
H: there is no automatic categorical bar against post-enactment purchases making takings claims
Must still go through the factors of Penn Central, although now purchaser may have a hard time.

27
Q

What is the rule from dolan?

A

established the “rough proportionality rule”
o R: Req’s “rough proportionality” between the exaction (land taken) and the projected harm of the landowner’s proposed activity
 Harm = traffic & flooding
 Easements/exaction = greenway & bike path

28
Q

what is the rule from nollan?

A

 “Essential nexus” (b/w the permit and the easement to be taken)
 Between the landowners’ harmful activity
 And the property taken

29
Q

What is the rule from koontz?

A

combines Nolan and Dolan tests
o R: “Gov’t may condition a land use permit on the relinquishment of real property (exaction) only if it shows a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the demand made and the impact of the proposed development”

30
Q

What are the physical takings rules?

A

PHYSICAL
* Must be for public use…The Public Benefit Test:
* Generally physical takings req compensation (standard instances—roads, airports, ports, etc.)
* Circumstances, however, may remove the need for compensation—i.e. where there is a necessity, a public nuisance, or where there is an underlying public servitude.
* Per se compensation is req’s UNLESS:
o Necessity - Miller case (cedar v. apple trees)
o Sovereign servitudes (PT, treaty or navigation servitude—Stevens, Matthews)
o Nuisance (i.e. crack house)