Cases Flashcards
Lincoln Trust Co v. The Williams Building Corp
Upheld NYC’s 1916 Zoning Ordinance
Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District
Koontz applied to develop 4 acres within the wetland near Orlando with 11 acre conservation easement (CE)
St. John’s River WMD gives Koontz two options; 4 acre development with 150k of off-site mitigation OR 1 acre of development with 14 acre CE
Koontz rejected both and argues it is a taking under Nolan and Dolan
SCOTUS considers - does Dual Nexus apply when permit is denied/no taking occurs? – Yes, Dual Nexus applies to exaction requiring money
Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Beach front landowners own to mean high water line (MHWL), which may naturally creep due to slow “accretion”
If beach expands through rapdevent (aversion) resulting in new beach, it belongs to the owner of the seabed which is the state of FL
SCOTUS upholds state- not a taking but encouraged future property owners to challenge on grounds of judicial taking
Southern Burlington NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel – 1975
New Jersey Supreme Court denied an exclusionary zoning ordinance adopted by Mount Laurel which prevented construction of affordable housing for poor and moderate income families
Court ordered jurisdictions and rewrite zoning laws to accommodate need for fair share of affordable housing market
Legal Landmarks/ Housing
Sam Remo Hotel L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco – 2005
SCOTUS concluded that state courts are fully competent to adjudicate constitutional challenges to local land use decisions
Legal questions were: which court should decide what and where?
U.S. Supreme Court/Land Use
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon – 1996
SCOTUS decided that the government can restrict land development to protect endangered species and their habitats, per the Endangered Species Act 1973.
It does not constitute a taking.
Court sought to validate the definition of harm as including significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures wildlife.
Legal Landmark/Natural Resources and Environmental Quality
Kelo v. City of New London – 2005
Economic Development plan included property owned by Suzette Kelo for an economic development project to improve economic situation in the city
Legal question: Whether economic development is a public use for power of eminent domain may be exercised
U.S. Supreme Court ruled in support of Economic Development as a public use
Did not expand or restrict power of eminent domain
Public ownership not the only acceptable method of promoting public purpose
Supreme Court Decision/Land Use
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams – 2005 (Supreme Court/Land Use)
Remedies available to a property owner if a municipality violates the Telecommuncation Act (TCA) 1996
SCOTUS- that property owner who successfully challenges municipalities and counties on violations of the TCA can ask the court to remedy the violation and issue a permit but cannot obtain more damages or attorney fees
General Electric v. Litton Industrial Automatic Systems Inc. – 1990
8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals validated the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or SuperFund)
Act requires the clean up of hazardous waste sites and is a strict liability statute open only to interpretation in the case of acts of God, acts of War, or unusual acts of 3rd parties.
(Legal Landmarks/Natural Resources and Environmental Quality)
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles -1978
The 1978 flood destroyed the church and campgrounds buildings.
Los Angeles County adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting construction or reconstruction in an area that included the campgrounds
SCOTUS found that the flood had destroyed all reasonable economic use of the land and that a taking had occurred
(Land Use)
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency – 1997
Suitum owned an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe. Planning Agency determined lot to be ineligible for development per agency regulations TDR program established gave Suitum of selling rights with agency approved
Addressed the question of whether a property owner must attempt to sale developmental rights before claiming the regulatory taking of property without just compensation
Suitum sued claiming the agency’s determination was a taking and U.S. Supreme Court agreed
Land Use
City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters Inc. 1986
Zoning ordinance prohibiting adult theaters within 1,000 feet of any residences, churches, parks, or schools on the grounds
SCOTUS upheld City of Renton and decided that it did not violate fee speech because it did not ban the use in the entire city
Land Use
Nellon v. California Coastal Commission 1987
Nellon’s a permit to build a house only if they provided a public easement on their beachfront property
SCOTUS held that the taking clause of the constitution was violated when a public agency would grant
(Land Use)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 1992
Landowner who had been denied permission to build a house on a developed shorefront successfully challenged a coastal zone protection law
SCOTUS held that regulations that deny all economic use of property constitutes a taking unless existing state property and nuisance law prohibit such use
(Land Use)
Dolon v. City of Tigard 1994
Store owner wanted to expand business but would be granted a permit only if she dedicated a portion of her land to a public greenway
SCOTUS held that permit conditions that require deeding portions of property to the government are justifiable if the required dedications related to or is roughly proportional to the nature and the extent of the impact of the proposed development
Court ruled that there was no reasonable relationship between the granting of the permit and the green public dedication
Land Use
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. 1982
State law requiring property owners to permit installation of cable T.V. facilities on the property
SCOTUS held this as a taking because it was a permanent physical invasion of private property
Landmark Decision/Land Use
Young v. American Mini Theaters Inc. 1976
SCOTUS upheld a Detroit “Adult Zoning” ordinance that prohibited the location of an adult movie theater within 1,000 feet of another such theater or 500 feet from a residential area
Court argued ordinance did not restrict free speech or violate 1st amendment but only maintain good neighborhood character
(Landmark Decision/Land Use)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian 1915
SCOTUS ruled that restricting certain nuisance land uses was a legitimate exercise of police power
Court upheld LA ordinance prohibiting operation of a brickyard and brick kiln
(Landmark Decision/Land Use)
