Cases Flashcards
1
Q
What did the U.S. Supreme Court rule in Barbier v. Connolly regarding racially discriminatory intent?
A
Evidence of racially discriminatory intent is not relevant when assessing the validity of a law that is neutral on its face and rationally related to the public interest.
This case set a precedent that facially neutral laws are constitutional if they serve a legitimate public purpose, even if they disproportionately impact a particular racial or ethnic group.
2
Q
What was the holding in Soon Hing v. Crowley regarding business regulations?
A
(1) The ordinance was constitutional as a legitimate exercise of police power. (2) A law that applies equally to all businesses is valid, even if it has a disparate impact. (3) Economic regulations do not implicate fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
This case reaffirmed the broad authority of local governments to regulate businesses under police powers.
3
Q
What does Yick Wo v. Hopkins establish about the enforcement of laws?
A
A law that is neutral on its face but enforced in a discriminatory way violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case reinforced that the Fourteenth Amendment protects all persons, including non-citizens.
4
Q
What did the Court rule in Mugler v. Kansas regarding property rights and state laws?
A
A state can enact laws under its police powers to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, even if such laws result in devaluation of property.
The case solidified the distinction between regulatory actions and physical takings.
5
Q
What was the key issue in Hadacheck v. Sebastian regarding police power?
A
The ordinance was a valid police power regulation and did not constitute a taking.
The Court reasoned that cities must be able to regulate land use to promote orderly growth and protect residents from industrial nuisances.
6
Q
What was the outcome of Buchanan v. Warley concerning racial zoning?
A
Express racial zoning deprives White homeowners of property without due process of law.
This case highlighted the role of the NAACP in challenging discriminatory zoning practices.
7
Q
In Clark v. Wambold, what did the court rule regarding nuisance claims?
A
A property owner cannot claim a nuisance and seek an injunction if the neighboring property is being used lawfully and reasonably.
This case protects businesses from frivolous nuisance claims while balancing the interests of neighboring landowners.
8
Q
What is the significance of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon regarding regulatory takings?
A
While states can regulate property use, if a regulation excessively diminishes property value, it may constitute a taking requiring just compensation.
The case examined the limits of state regulatory power over property rights.
9
Q
Fill in the blank: In Barbier v. Connolly, a local government’s law is constitutional if it applies equally to all persons and serves a legitimate public purpose, even if it has a _______.
A
disproportionate impact on certain groups.
10
Q
True or False: The Court in Soon Hing v. Crowley found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from general business regulations.
A
False.
11
Q
True or False: The law in Yick Wo v. Hopkins was found unconstitutional due to its facial neutrality.
A
False.
12
Q
What does the term ‘police power’ refer to in the context of these cases?
A
The authority of a state to enact laws to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
13
Q
What does the Fourteenth Amendment state regarding property use regulations?
A
If a regulation excessively diminishes property value, it may constitute a taking requiring just compensation.
14
Q
What is a regulatory taking?
A
A law that deprives an owner of economically viable use of their property, even if enacted under police power, may be a taking if it ‘goes too far’ in restricting property rights.
15
Q
What was the Kohler Act in relation to Pennsylvania Coal Co.?
A
The Kohler Act prohibited mining in ways that could cause subsidence, nullifying Pennsylvania Coal Co.’s ability to mine coal under Mahon’s property.
16
Q
What was the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the Kohler Act?
A
The Kohler Act constituted a regulatory taking without just compensation, violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
If a regulation diminishes property value excessively, it constitutes a taking. Holmes introduced the “diminution in value” test, arguing that the Kohler Act made it impossible for Pennsylvania Coal Co. to exercise its mining rights, rendering their property interest economically useless. Thus, the law had “gone too far” and required compensation.
17
Q
What test did Justice Holmes introduce regarding property value?
A
The ‘diminution in value’ test.
18
Q
What principle did the case establish regarding regulatory takings?
A
A regulation can be deemed a taking if it excessively reduces property value.
19
Q
What does zoning aim to achieve?
A
The territorial division of land into use districts according to the character of the land and buildings.
20
Q
What is ‘Euclidean Zoning’?
A
A zoning system that categorizes land uses into specific districts, such as residential and industrial.
21
Q
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.?
A
Zoning regulations are a valid exercise of police power and municipalities can segregate land uses to promote public welfare.
22
Q
What distinguishes facial challenges from as-applied challenges in zoning cases?
A
Facial challenges argue that a zoning law is unconstitutional in all cases, while as-applied challenges claim it is unconstitutional for a specific property.
23
Q
What must zoning ordinances have according to the Supreme Court?
A
A substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
24
Q
What is the key finding from Nectow v. City of Cambridge?
A
The zoning ordinance deprived Nectow of his property without due process, violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
25
What did the court establish about nonconforming uses in State ex rel. Morehouse v. Hunt?
A nonconforming use is not considered abandoned unless there is an intent to permanently discontinue it.
26
What is spot zoning?
Zoning changes that grant privileges to a single property without benefiting the broader community.
27
What criteria must a plaintiff prove to challenge illegal spot zoning?
* No reasonable relationship between the rezoning and any policies of the plan.
* No reasonable relationship between the rezoning and public health, safety, or welfare.
28
What does the case Church v. Town of Islip clarify about conditional zoning?
Conditional zoning is not inherently invalid, but municipalities cannot engage in zoning by contract.
29
What was the court's reasoning in Moffat v. Forrest City regarding nonconforming uses?
A zoning ordinance restricting the continuation of nonconforming uses if a structure is damaged beyond a specific threshold is enforceable.
30
What impact does the case of Nectow v. City of Cambridge have on zoning laws?
It established that zoning regulations must be rational and serve a legitimate purpose.
31
What is enforceable when a nonconforming use structure is damaged beyond a specific threshold?
An ordinance restricting the continuation of nonconforming uses.
32
What percentage of destruction to a nonconforming use structure prevents its restoration for prior use according to the Supreme Court of Arkansas?
60%.
33
What was the primary argument of the Moffatts in their case regarding the meat market?
Strict interpretation in their favor.
34
What did the trial court rule regarding the Moffatts' ability to rebuild?
In favor of the city, enforcing the zoning ordinance.
35
What does substantial destruction void according to the ruling?
Nonconforming rights.
36
In State v. Perry, what was determined to be an unlawful extension of a nonconforming use?
Adding a trailer for storage to an ice cream manufacturing facility.
37
What must nonconforming uses not do according to zoning laws?
Expand or extend.
38
What was the court's reasoning in State v. Perry regarding the use of a trailer?
It effectively enlarged the nonconforming use.
39
What is a master plan according to Cochran v. Planning Bd. of City of Summit?
A non-binding planning document.
40
What legal consequence does the adoption of a master plan have?
No immediate alteration of zoning laws or property rights.
41
What did the court rule regarding legal challenges based on a master plan’s adoption?
They are premature until implemented through zoning ordinances.
42
What constitutes a nuisance according to Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Company?
Substantial and unreasonable interference with property rights.
43
What was the traditional remedy for a nuisance?
Injunction.
44
What did the Court of Appeals decide regarding the remedy in Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Company?
Permanent damages instead of an injunction.
45
What principle was reinforced by the ruling in Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Company?
Balancing economic harm versus damage to affected property owners.
46
What is the legality of conditional zoning as per Montgomery County v. National Capital Realty Corp.?
Conditional zoning is not permissible in Maryland.
47
What must zoning reclassification align with according to the Maryland Court of Appeals?
Comprehensive planning.
48
What did the Board of Adjustment rule in Parks v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Killeen regarding the music school?
It was a valid accessory use.
49
What criteria must a home-based business meet to be considered a customary home occupation?
Conducted within the primary residence by the homeowner without non-family employees.
50
What is necessary for a zoning ordinance to be valid according to Creative Displays, Inc. v. City of Florence?
Strict compliance with statutory requirements.
51
What was the consequence of failing to follow procedural requirements in zoning ordinances?
Zoning ordinances were rendered void.
52
What does the Wisconsin Supreme Court recognize regarding a landowner's right to sunlight in Prah v. Maretti?
It can be protected under private nuisance law.
53
What must courts balance according to the ruling in Prah v. Maretti?
Competing land interests.
54
What case recognized solar access rights under private nuisance law?
Prah v. Maretti
## Footnote
This case emphasized the importance of adapting legal doctrines to modern technological and environmental concerns.
55
What did the Supreme Court of Idaho rule regarding comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances?
Zoning ordinances must align with comprehensive plans but do not have to strictly follow land use maps
## Footnote
The court emphasized that zoning authorities retain discretion and must consider present conditions.
56
What was the outcome of the Elysian Heights Residents Association, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles regarding zoning inconsistencies?
Permits issued under inconsistent zoning laws remain valid if the city has not yet amended its ordinances
## Footnote
The court upheld the validity of the building permit despite its inconsistency with the city's general plan.
57
What is the significance of the Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis ruling?
A state regulation that substantially advances legitimate public interests does not constitute a compensable taking
## Footnote
This case clarified that environmental regulations with substantial public benefits are less likely to be deemed takings requiring compensation.
58
What key legal question was addressed in Giger v. City of Omaha?
Was the rezoning legislative or administrative?
## Footnote
This case examined the validity of Omaha’s zoning amendments and the role of conditional rezoning agreements.
59
What did the court rule regarding the church's operation of a temporary homeless shelter in Greentree v. Good Shepherd Episcopal Church?
The church’s operation of a temporary homeless shelter is a lawful accessory use under zoning regulations
## Footnote
The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the shelter caused substantial interference with their property rights.
60
What must municipalities do when deviating from a comprehensive plan according to Osiecki v. Town of Huntington?
Articulate reasons on the record showing that rezoning serves the public interest
## Footnote
Towns cannot arbitrarily disregard a master plan without justifying their decision.
61
Fill in the blank: Zoning ordinances must be enacted in accordance with a _______.
comprehensive plan
62
True or False: The Supreme Court's ruling in Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis found that all regulations affecting property values constitute compensable takings.
False
## Footnote
The ruling underscored that not all regulations affecting property values constitute compensable takings.
63
What did the court emphasize regarding zoning decisions in the Osiecki case?
Zoning decisions must be consistent with long-term planning to prevent arbitrary decision-making
## Footnote
The court ruled that municipalities cannot arbitrarily rezone properties in ways that contradict previously established plans.
64
What was a key conclusion from the Bone v. City of Lewiston case?
There is no entitlement to zoning designation that matches the planning map
## Footnote
The plan serves as an advisory guide rather than a binding mandate.
65
What must zoning decisions be consistent with to prevent arbitrary decision-making?
Long-term planning.
## Footnote
Zoning decisions should align with established plans to avoid arbitrary practices.
66
What principle does this case reinforce regarding zoning?
Zoning must be based on rational and articulated planning rather than ad hoc decision-making.
## Footnote
This ensures municipalities cannot rezone properties arbitrarily.
67
What standard must zoning boards apply when considering area variance applications under New York zoning law?
Statutory balancing test outlined in Town Law § 267-b (3).
## Footnote
This replaced the outdated 'practical difficulties' standard.
68
What factors should be considered when granting an area variance?
* Benefit to the applicant
* Potential harm to the community
* Neighborhood impact
* Alternatives
* Environmental concerns
## Footnote
These factors help ensure a rational decision.
69
What did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rule regarding unnecessary hardship in variance cases?
Mere personal preference does not constitute unnecessary hardship.
## Footnote
Variances must meet all statutory requirements.
70
What is the consequence of a property owner discontinuing a nonconforming use for two years under New York City zoning laws?
The nonconforming use is forfeited.
## Footnote
Intent to resume the nonconforming use does not prevent abandonment.
71
What did the Minnesota Court of Appeals rule regarding municipalities phasing out nonconforming uses?
Municipalities may phase out nonconforming uses through a reasonable amortization period.
## Footnote
This must serve a legitimate public interest.
72
What must an applicant demonstrate to obtain a zoning variance?
* Unnecessary hardship
* Hardship not self-imposed
* Variance is the least intrusive solution
## Footnote
Strict criteria ensure variances are granted appropriately.
73
What did the court conclude about the denial of a special use permit for Living Word Outreach Full Gospel Church?
The denial was arbitrary and capricious.
## Footnote
The church met all zoning requirements, and the denial violated its First Amendment rights.
74
When may an attorney be disqualified from representing a new client?
If the representation is in a substantially related matter where the interests are materially adverse to a former client without consent.
## Footnote
This is outlined in Rule 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
75
What does the term 'unnecessary hardship' refer to in zoning law?
A hardship not of the applicant's own making that justifies a variance.
## Footnote
It must be significant enough to warrant deviation from zoning laws.
76
What legal standard governs the granting of a use variance in Michigan?
Strict application of zoning laws creates unnecessary hardship without compromising public safety.
## Footnote
The variance must observe the spirit of zoning regulations.
77
What was the primary issue in the case regarding the 100 acres of property?
The property owners sought to rezone from agricultural to residential for a 250-unit development.
78
What was the outcome of the local planning commission's decision on the rezoning request?
The local planning commission denied the rezoning.
79
Which body granted a use variance after the local planning commission's denial?
The township's Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) granted a use variance.
80
What did the appellants argue regarding the ZBA's decision?
The appellants contended that the variance was an improper rezoning.
81
Which court upheld the ZBA's decision regarding the variance?
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
82
What reasoning did the court provide for upholding the variance?
The variance was supported by substantial evidence and met hardship requirements.
83
What factors justified the granting of the variance according to the court?
Factors included financial hardship and the evolving character of the community.
84
True or False: The court ruled that large-scale zoning variances constitute de facto rezoning.
False
85
What legal principle was reaffirmed regarding zoning boards and variances?
Zoning boards have discretion to grant variances when strict adherence to zoning laws creates undue hardship.
86
What is the impact of changing land use patterns on zoning variances?
Changes in land use patterns may justify variances without requiring full rezoning.
87
What was the main legal question in Burch v. Nedpower Mount Storm, LLC?
Whether homeowners can challenge a state-approved wind power project on nuisance grounds.
88
What can homeowners do if a state-approved project significantly impacts their property rights?
They can challenge it as a private nuisance.
89
What did the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia rule regarding nuisance claims?
It allowed the nuisance claim to proceed despite regulatory approval.
90
True or False: Regulatory approval shields projects from nuisance claims.
False
91
What did the case of Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC examine?
Whether amplified music concerts on farmland constitute a nuisance.
92
What type of nuisance did the case primarily involve?
Private nuisance.
93
What legal protection does the Tennessee Right to Farm Act provide?
It protects farms from nuisance claims related to agricultural activities.
94
Fill in the blank: The Right to Farm Act does not grant blanket immunity to all activities occurring on a farm, particularly if they are non-agricultural and substantially interfere with a neighbor’s _______.
use and enjoyment of property.
95
What was the outcome of the trial court's ruling regarding Shore's nuisance claims?
The trial court dismissed Shore’s claims.
96
What did the Tennessee Supreme Court conclude about the concerts held on Maple Lane Farms?
The concerts were not considered 'agriculture' and were not protected from nuisance claims.
97
What precedent does this case set regarding non-agricultural activities on farmland?
Non-agricultural activities can still be subject to nuisance claims.
98
What criteria should courts consider to determine whether an activity qualifies as 'agriculture'?
The specific nature of the activity and its relation to traditional farming.
99
What was the ruling in Barbier v. Connolly (1884)?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence of racially discriminatory intent is not relevant to the validity of facially-neutral local legislative actions that are rationally related to the public welfare.
## Footnote
The case examined whether a facially neutral local ordinance could be challenged based on its alleged racially discriminatory impact.
100
What does the Barbier v. Connolly case establish about local government laws?
A local government’s law is constitutional if it applies equally to all persons and serves a legitimate public purpose, even if it has a disproportionate impact on certain groups.
## Footnote
The case involved a San Francisco ordinance that prohibited certain types of laundry businesses from operating at night, effectively targeting Chinese laundry operators.
101
What was the outcome of Soon Hing v. Crowley (1885)?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws regulating business operations are constitutional under the police power of the state if they apply equally to all persons and serve a legitimate public interest.
## Footnote
The case involved a local ordinance restricting laundry operations on Sundays and at night.
102
What principle did Soon Hing v. Crowley establish regarding economic regulations?
A law that restricts business hours is valid if it is facially neutral, even if it disproportionately impacts a certain group.
## Footnote
The Fourteenth Amendment does not protect individuals from general business regulations.
103
What was the ruling in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)?
The Court held that a law that is neutral on its face but enforced in a discriminatory way violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
## Footnote
The case involved a San Francisco ordinance requiring laundries in wooden buildings to obtain permits, which were denied to Chinese applicants.
104
What does Yick Wo v. Hopkins say about the enforcement of laws?
Even when a law appears fair in wording, if its application results in discrimination against a specific racial or ethnic group, it is unconstitutional.
## Footnote
The Court ruled that a law administered with an 'evil eye and an unequal hand' is unconstitutional.
105
What was the key ruling in Mugler v. Kansas (1887)?
A state can enact laws under its police powers to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, even if such laws result in devaluation of property.
## Footnote
The case addressed whether a state prohibition law that devalues private property amounts to an unconstitutional taking.
106
What principle did Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) establish regarding police power?
The ordinance prohibiting brick manufacturing in certain areas was a constitutional exercise of police power.
## Footnote
The case examined whether a city can prohibit certain businesses through zoning laws.
107
What was the ruling in Buchanan v. Warley (1917)?
Express racial zoning deprives White homeowners of property without due process of law.
## Footnote
The case involved a contract for a home sale that was affected by a racial zoning ordinance.
108
What does Clark v. Wambold (1917) say about nuisance claims?
A property owner cannot claim a nuisance and seek an injunction if the neighboring property is being used lawfully and reasonably, even if it results in some inconvenience.
## Footnote
The case involved a pig farm that caused odors but was maintained in a sanitary manner.
109
What is the significance of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)?
While states can regulate property use under their police power, if a regulation excessively diminishes property value, it may constitute a taking requiring just compensation.
## Footnote
The case examined whether a statute preventing mining that leads to subsidence constitutes a compensable taking.
110
What can constitute a taking under police power?
If enacted under police power, a regulation may be a taking if it 'goes too far' in restricting property rights.
111
What was the main issue in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon?
The case involved Pennsylvania's Kohler Act, which prohibited mining in ways that could cause subsidence, affecting Pennsylvania Coal Co.'s ability to mine under Mahon's property.
112
What was the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon?
The Court ruled that the Kohler Act constituted a regulatory taking without just compensation, violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
113
What test did Justice Holmes introduce in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon?
Holmes introduced the 'diminution in value' test, arguing that excessive regulation diminishing property value constitutes a taking.
114
What principle did Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon establish?
The case established the modern doctrine of regulatory takings, asserting that regulations can be deemed a taking if they excessively reduce property value.
115
What key questions does Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon raise?
It raises questions about when regulation becomes a taking and how courts measure the economic impact of government action on property.
116
What was the focus of the zoning ordinance in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.?
The zoning ordinance aimed to cluster compatible land uses and segregate incompatible uses.
117
What did the Supreme Court rule regarding zoning laws in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.?
The Court upheld the authority of municipalities to enforce zoning laws as a valid exercise of police power.
118
What are the key takeaways from Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.?
Zoning regulations are valid exercises of police power, municipalities can segregate land uses, and property value reduction alone does not make zoning laws unconstitutional.
119
What was the outcome of Miller v. Schoene?
The case involved the destruction of infected cedar trees by the state, ruling that social policy considerations did not deny due process.
120
What was the key difference between Nectow v. City of Cambridge and Village of Euclid?
Nectow involved an as-applied challenge, while Euclid involved a facial challenge to the zoning law.
121
What did Nectow v. City of Cambridge establish regarding zoning laws?
The Court found that zoning laws could violate property rights in specific cases, even if generally presumed constitutional.
122
What are the current rules on zoning after Euclid and Nectow?
Comprehensive zoning is constitutional, facial challenges are harder to win, and courts may intervene in as-applied challenges.
123
What does State ex rel. Morehouse v. Hunt address?
The case deals with nonconforming uses and whether a temporary discontinuance constitutes abandonment.
124
What did Bartram v. Zoning Commission clarify about spot zoning?
Spot zoning must conform with a comprehensive plan and serve the general welfare; otherwise, it is against public policy.
125
What was the ruling in Church v. Town of Islip regarding conditional zoning?
Conditional zoning is not inherently invalid, but municipalities cannot engage in zoning by contract.
126
What did Moffat v. Forrest City determine about nonconforming uses?
The case upheld that a nonconforming use structure destroyed beyond a specific threshold cannot be restored for its prior use.
127
What was the outcome of the Moffatts' appeal regarding their meat market?
The Court upheld the trial court’s ruling that the structure was more than 60% destroyed and could not be rebuilt for nonconforming use.
## Footnote
This case reinforces municipal authority to phase out nonconforming uses when a structure is substantially destroyed.
128
What does the case State v. Perry establish about nonconforming uses?
Nonconforming uses may continue but cannot be extended or expanded under zoning laws designed to phase out nonconforming uses over time.
## Footnote
The court ruled that the use of a trailer as an additional storage facility constituted an unlawful extension of a nonconforming use.
129
What is the legal status of a master plan according to Cochran v. Planning Bd. of City of Summit?
A master plan is a non-binding planning document that does not have legal consequences until it is formally adopted as a zoning ordinance by the governing body.
## Footnote
Legal challenges based solely on a master plan’s adoption are premature until the plan is implemented through zoning ordinances.
130
What precedent did Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Company set regarding nuisance cases?
This case set a precedent for awarding permanent damages instead of injunctive relief in nuisance cases where the economic impact of shutting down an operation is too severe.
## Footnote
The Court reasoned that shutting down a $45 million plant employing over 300 people would be economically disproportionate to the damage caused.
131
What does Montgomery County v. National Capital Realty Corp. say about conditional zoning?
Zoning reclassification cannot be contingent upon conditions not imposed by a zoning ordinance, as this constitutes conditional zoning, which is not permissible in Maryland.
## Footnote
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that zoning decisions must be based on comprehensive planning rather than agreements that impose conditions beyond the zoning ordinance.
132
What did Parks v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Killeen determine about home-based businesses?
A home-based business can be considered an accessory use in a residential zone if it meets the zoning ordinance's definition of a 'customary home occupation,' without additional restrictions based on income or business size.
## Footnote
The Court emphasized that the zoning ordinance allows home-based businesses if they are conducted within the residence by the owner and without hired employees.
133
What was the ruling in Creative Displays, Inc. v. City of Florence regarding zoning ordinances?
A zoning ordinance must strictly comply with statutory requirements, including public hearings and the proper adoption of a comprehensive plan.
## Footnote
The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the decision, holding that the zoning regulations did not meet the procedural mandates of the law.
134
What did Prah v. Maretti establish about access to sunlight?
A landowner's right to solar access can be protected under private nuisance law.
## Footnote
The court recognized that societal values had evolved, and sunlight now had an economic and functional importance beyond aesthetic value.
135
What precedent did the case involving Prah and Maretti set?
It recognized solar access rights under private nuisance law and emphasized adapting legal doctrines to modern concerns.
136
What did the Supreme Court of Idaho rule in Bone v. City of Lewiston?
Zoning ordinances must align with comprehensive plans but do not have to rigidly follow land use maps.
137
What was the outcome of Elysian Heights Residents Association, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles?
The court upheld the validity of a building permit despite its inconsistency with the city's general plan.
138
What principle did Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis establish?
A state regulation that advances legitimate public interests does not constitute a compensable taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
139
What did the court find in Giger v. City of Omaha regarding conditional zoning?
Conditional rezoning is a valid exercise of municipal power when tied to public welfare.
140
What did Greentree v. Good Shepherd Episcopal Church determine about accessory uses?
Churches may lawfully engage in accessory uses that align with their religious mission, including temporary housing for the homeless.
141
What was the ruling in Osiecki v. Town of Huntington regarding zoning designations?
Zoning ordinances must be enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and deviations must be justified.
142
What principle does the case reinforce regarding zoning decisions?
Zoning must be based on rational and articulated planning, rather than ad hoc decision-making.
143
What does the case Sasso v. Osgood (1995) examine?
The proper standard for granting area variances under New York zoning law.
144
What is the statutory balancing test outlined in Town Law § 267-b (3)?
Zoning boards must apply this test when considering area variance applications without requiring proof of 'practical difficulties.'
145
What did the Court of Appeals rule in Sasso v. Osgood?
The statutory balancing test replaced the old standard of requiring proof of 'practical difficulties.'
146
What must a variance applicant demonstrate according to Larsen v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh (1996)?
Unnecessary hardship, that the hardship was not self-imposed, and that the variance is the least intrusive solution.
147
What did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule in Larsen v. Zoning Board of Adjustment?
The desire for additional outdoor space does not constitute unnecessary hardship.
148
What does Toys 'R' Us v. Silva (1996) examine?
Whether a property owner can retain a nonconforming use after a period of discontinued activity.
149
What is the consequence of discontinuing a nonconforming use for two years under New York City zoning law?
The nonconforming use is forfeited, regardless of the owner's intent.
150
What did the Minnesota Court of Appeals rule in AVR, Inc. v. City of St. Louis Park (1998)?
A municipality may phase out a nonconforming land use through a reasonable amortization period.
151
What did the court determine regarding the amortization period in AVR, Inc. v. City of St. Louis Park?
The amortization period was upheld as reasonable and did not violate property rights.
152
What is the significance of City of Chicago Heights v. Living Word Outreach Full Gospel (2001)?
Municipalities must adhere to zoning ordinances when reviewing special use permits.
153
What did the court find regarding the denial of the special use permit in City of Chicago Heights?
The denial was arbitrary and capricious because the church met all zoning requirements.
154
What does Nicholas v. Wilton Zoning Board of Appeals (2001) examine?
Whether an attorney should be disqualified from representing a client due to a potential conflict of interest.
155
What does Rule 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct state?
An attorney may not represent a new client in a matter substantially related to a prior representation if the former client's interests are materially adverse.
156
What did the Michigan Court of Appeals rule in Janssen v. Holland Charter Twp. Zoning Board of Appeals (2002)?
A zoning board of appeals may grant a variance where strict application of zoning laws creates unnecessary hardship.
157
What must a variance not compromise according to Janssen v. Holland Charter Twp.?
Public safety and the spirit of zoning regulations.
158
What was the outcome of the local planning commission's decision on the rezoning?
The local planning commission denied the rezoning, but the township's Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) granted a use variance.
159
What did the appellants argue regarding the ZBA's decision?
The appellants contested the ZBA's decision, arguing that the variance was an improper rezoning.
160
What was the trial court's ruling on the ZBA's decision?
The trial court upheld the ZBA’s decision, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed it.
161
What justification did the court provide for upholding the variance?
The court found that the request met the necessary hardship requirements and did not constitute an unlawful rezoning.
162
What evidence supported the court's decision regarding the variance?
The variance was supported by substantial evidence, including financial hardship and the evolving character of the community.
163
What principle did the ruling reaffirm about zoning boards?
Zoning boards have discretion to grant variances when strict adherence to zoning laws creates undue hardship.
164
What does the case illustrate about changes in land use patterns?
Changes in land use patterns may justify variances without requiring full rezoning.
165
What was the main issue in Burch v. Nedpower Mount Storm, LLC?
The case examines whether homeowners can challenge a state-approved wind power project on nuisance grounds.
166
Can a project approved by regulatory agencies be challenged as a private nuisance?
Yes, a project approved by regulatory agencies may still be challenged as a private nuisance if it causes substantial interference with property rights.
167
What did the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia rule in the Burch case?
The court reversed the Circuit Court's decision, allowing the nuisance claim to proceed.
168
What does the Tennessee Right to Farm Act protect?
The Tennessee Right to Farm Act protects farms from nuisance claims related to agricultural activities.
169
What was the main issue in Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC?
The case examines whether amplified music concerts on farmland constitute a nuisance.
170
What was the court's ruling regarding the concerts at Maple Lane Farms?
The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the concerts were not 'agriculture' under zoning laws.
171
What precedent does the Shore case set regarding non-agricultural activities on farmland?
Non-agricultural activities conducted on farmland can still be subject to nuisance claims, even if they contribute to farm revenue.
