Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

AICP Review 2019 > Cases and Law Topics > Flashcards

Cases and Law Topics Flashcards

1
Q

Keystone Bituminous Coal Assoc. v. DeBenedictis

A

(1987) Main issue: Taking. Not a taking; because all land value was not lost in regulations on coal mining.

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

Federal Communications Commission v. Florida Power Corporation

A

(1987) Main issue: Takings. Utility poles were acting as a taking per say because they were a physical occupation of property.

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

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry. Co.

A

(1896) Trolley to be built on grounds of Gettysburg Battlefiled; which was fought against but was built in the end

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

Miller v. Schoene

A

(1928) Main issue: Taking. Just compenstation for requiring removal of property. Prop owner required to remove trees that could give nearby orchards a disease. Given $$ to do so.

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

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of NY

A

(1976) Main issue: Taking. Ruled that transfer of development rights would be inappropriate to compensate for a taking.

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

Welch v. Swasey

A

(1909) Main issue: Planning. Upheld that state of MA could limit the height of buildings in a certain quarter of the city; and it did not violate the Constitution

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

“Bundle of sticks” metaphor in regards to property rights

A

Each stick is a right. Rights, like sticks, are dynamic; can be changed over time; through statues and case laws. Together; they add up to your full property rights.

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

Private nuisance

A

An individual’s conduct interferes with another individuals “quiet enjoyment of their land”

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

Public nuisance

A

An individuals’ conduct intereferes with the public’s right to health; safety; peace; morals; comfort or convenience

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

Hadacheck v. Sabastian

A

(1915) Main topic: Nuisance. In LA; pre-existing brickyard was delcared public nuisance after city divided into districts. Land lost value with new districts; but court upheld - was a nuisance.

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

Police power

A

Inherent power of government to protect public health; safety and welfare

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

Levels of government with police power

A

State gov = has it inherently. Fed gov = only specifically enumerated powers. Local gov = depends.

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

Dillion’s Rule

A

Local governments have no power unless a state explicity gives to them

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

Home Rule

A

Local government has all powers except those reserved by the state

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

Munn v. Illinois

A

(1876) Main topics: Due process and equal protection. The Court upheld the power of state governments to regulate private industries that affect “the common good”.

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

Three Expressed Federal Powers from the Constitution

A

Commerce Clause = power to regulate commerce among states; Treaty Power = exclusive power to enter into treaties with other governments; Income Tax = funding the federal government

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

1st Amendment

A

Freedom of speech and of religion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

5th Amendment

A

Includes that no person shall “be deprived of life; liberty; or property; without due process of law” by federal gov. Protection of private property rights; and basis for TAKINGS and DUE PROCESS court cases.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

13th Amendment

A

Abolished slavery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

14th Amendment

A

Includes that no person shall “be deprived of life; liberty; or property; without due process of law” by state gov. Protection of private property rights; and basis for TAKINGS and DUE PROCESS court cases.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Three Types of a Taking

A

Direct physical invasion or seizure (eminent domain); regulatory interferance or an exaction; indirect government action (this one is not compensatable)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon

A

(1922) Main topic: Taking. Coal company sells subsurface rights; many years later statue changes to not allow mining below housing. NOT a taking bc the residential builder didn’t lose out; the coal company did. Establishes the right of regulatory taking.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Items Considered in a Taking

A

Does the use of police power go too far? Was there reasonable investment-backed expectation of value? Was the gov action legit? What was the degree of lost value? Recall bundled rights - if all rights not lost; its not a neces. a taking

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Penn Central v. Transportation Co. of New York

A

(1978) Main issue: Taking. NY new historic preservation law prevented owner from building; but their development rights were transferred. NOT a taking because they did not lose out.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Loretto v. Teleprompter CATV

A

(1982) Main issue: Taking.Showed that even minor invasions are per-say takings.

26
Q

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. LA County

A

(1987) Main issue: Taking. Temporay moratorum on building prevented church from rebuilding camp. NOT a taking because it was temporary.

27
Q

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

A

(1992) Main issue: Taking. Owner denied building permits after hurricane. TAKING - compensation is required when regulations deny all use of property.

28
Q

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

A

(2000) Mian issue: Taking. Owner denied building permit during a planning moratorium and complicated TDR process. NOT a taking bc did not lose all value.

29
Q

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

A

(2001) Main issue: Taking. Land has a building permit in a coastal wetland; but state changes regulations and then land is sold. NOT a taking bc land did not use all value.

30
Q

Berman v. Parker

A

(1954) Main issue: Taking. DC urban renewal project - NOT a taking. Established that aesthetics and economics are legit gov reasons for eminent domain.

31
Q

Kelo v. City of New London

A

(2005) Main issue: Taking. Entire neighborhood condemned for econ devel; not blighted. NOT a taking bc for legit public use.

32
Q

Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Dept of Environmental Protection

A

(2010) Main issue: Taking. Court took away rights through a new interpretation of the law. TAKING.

33
Q

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

A

(1987) Main issue: Exaction. Owner required to leave paralell beach access justified by needing to preserve views. TAKING. Established 1st part of Dual Nexus Test - have to prove “essential nexus” or rational relationship

34
Q

Dolan v. City of Tigard

A

(1997) Main issue: Exaction. Owner required to set aside 20% of parcel for bike path. TAKING. Established 2nd part of Dual Nexus Test - rough proportionality

35
Q

Dual Nexus Test

A

Gov must prove an essential nexus (aka rational relationship) between the requirement and state interest; and there must be rough propotionality

36
Q

Koontz v. St John’s River WMD

A

(2013) Main issue: Exaction. Building permit denied and no physical taking; but money was required. TAKING due to the extent of the money gov was asking for

37
Q

Due Process is established by which Amendments?

A

5th and 14th (fed and state; respectively)

38
Q

City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises

A

(1976) Main issue: Due Process. Unpopular zoning overturned by a popular referendum. Was this OK due process? YES bc the zoning was a legislative action

39
Q

Fasano v. Board of Commers Wash. Co

A

(1973) Main issue: Due Process. Recognized that in some states, zoning is quasi-judicial. A board of county commissioners changed zoning, court overturned it bc it wasn’t in line with comp plan - but it was within their purview to modify zoning.

40
Q

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Devel Corp

A

(1977) Main issue: Equal Protecttion. No public housing being built in suburbs; does this violate equal protection? NO

41
Q

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas

A

(1974) Main issue: Equal Protection. Town wanted to limit student housing; so redefined “family”. And court upheld the law. Students are not a protected class.

42
Q

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

A

(1985) Main issue: Equal Protection. Community limited housing for mentally incapacitated people; court overturned the law via equal protection.

43
Q

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech

A

(2000) Main issue: Equal Protection. Owner given extra hoops to jump through; claiimed undo animosity. Proved you can be a protected class of one.

44
Q

Civil Rights Act of 1871

A

Adopted statue that enforced 14th amendment. If you can prove the government has discriminated you against you can get compensation.

45
Q

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams

A

(2005) Main issue: Equal Protection. Owner denied permit to build radio tower. Lost bc congress did provide alternative settlement procedures that he didn’t follow.

46
Q

Civil Rights Act of 1968

A

AKA Fair Housing Act. Prohibits discrimination in sale or rental of housing based on race. Added gener in 1974 and families with children in 1988.

47
Q

City of Edmonds v. Oxford House

A

(1994) Main issue: Equal Protection. Law that stated 5+ people in a home illegal if from different families considered unjust bc it did not further safety or public uses

48
Q

Southern Burlington NAACP v. Town of Mt. Laurel

A

(1975) Main issue: Equal Protection. City was only zoning for PUDs; NAACP used state law to require fair share of low income housing across the state. Est. concept of exclusionary zoning.

49
Q

Young v. American Mini Theater

A

(1976) Main issue: Free speech; adult uses. Challenged dispersal of adult uses. Law upheld - not all free speech is equal; and its OK to require dispersal of adult uses.

50
Q

City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters

A

(1986) Main issue: Free speech; adult uses. Challenged distance requirements for adult uses. Law upheld.

51
Q

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp v. Public Service Comm

A

(1980) Main issue: Free speech; signs. State claimed public utility couldn’t avertize; Feds overturned. Free speech 4-part test established.

52
Q

Metromedia v. City of San Diego

A

(1981) Main issue: Free speech; signs. SD tried to ban all billboards; not OK; non-commerical could not be banned.

53
Q

Larkin v. Grendel’s Den

A

(1982) Main issue: Free speech; religion. Church given veto power over a liquor license; not OK. They do not have police power.

54
Q

Lemon v. Kurtzman

A

(1971) Main issue: Free speech; religion. State can’t fund relgiious education.

55
Q

Oregon Employment Division v. Smith

A

(1990) Main issue: Free speech; religion. State denied unemployment insurance for Native Americans fired for smoking peyote when not on the job.

56
Q

RLUPIA

A

Religious Land Uses and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000). Designed to prevent discrimination against free exercise of religion by citizens vested with land use discretion.

57
Q

Civil Liberties for Urban Believers Club v. City of Chicago

A

(2003) Main issue: Free speech; religion. City sued for making it more difficult to build churches in residential areas. OK bc it applied to all religious groups and wasn’t an extraordianry burden.

58
Q

Mulger v. Kansas

A

(1887) Main issue: Zoning. New law delcares liquor sales a nuisance and brewery gets fined. NOT a taking and was due process.

59
Q

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co

A

(1926) Main issue: Zoning. First case to uphold zoning - established concetp of public welfare via the city’s use of police power. NOT a taking.

60
Q

Nectow v. City of Cambridge

A

(1928) Min issue: Zoning. Contract to sell proerty had to be voided when zoning changed. TAKING bc value lost.

61
Q

Golden v. Town of Ramapo

A

(1972) Main issue: Zoning. City not givning building permits until ready to build utilities. NOT a taking.

62
Q

Construction Industry Assoc. v. City of Petaluma

A

(1975) Main issue: Zoning. local government trying to control development with permit rationing to work with utility setup. NOT a taking.

AICP Review 2019 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions