Court Cases

Question 1

First significant case regarding the relatively new practice of zoning, and served to substantially bolster zoning ordinances.

Answer 1

Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

Question 2

Decision on compensation for regulatory takings. TDR.

Answer 2

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City

Question 3

Established the “total takings” test for evaluating whether a particular regulatory action constitutes a regulatory taking that requires compensation.

Answer 3

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Question 4

Held that a claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated regulatory taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation challenged.

Answer 4

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

Question 5

Has served to establish limits on the ability of cities and other government agencies to use zoning and land-use regulations to compel property owners to make unrelated public improvements as a condition to getting zoning approval.

Answer 5

Dolan v. City of Tigard

Question 6

Allows the use of performance criteria as a means of slowing community growth.

Answer 6

Golden v. Ramapo

Question 7

Integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme. Challenge to Shoreline Zoning Ordinance that owners can’t develop land near navigable waters upheld. Not a takings because it preserved a public right rather than conferring.

Answer 7

Just v. Marinette Co.

Question 8

Requires that municipalities use their zoning powers in an affirmative manner to provide a realistic opportunity for the production of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

Answer 8

Mt. Laurel (Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Township)

Question 9

Challenging the legality of a city ordinance restricting the placement of signs in the yards of residents.

Answer 9

Ladue v. Gilleo

Question 10

Held that localities may impose regulations prohibiting adult theaters from operating within certain areas, finding that the regulation in question was a content-neutral time/place/manner restriction.

Answer 10

Renton v. Playtime Theaters

Question 11

“Essential Nexus” Ruled that a requirement by the org. was a taking in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer 11

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Question 12

Eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.

Answer 12

Kelo v. City of New London

Question 13

Regulatory takings.

Answer 13

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

Question 14

Telecommunications Act case.

Answer 14

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams

Question 15

State courts can adjudicate challenges to land-use decisions.

Answer 15

San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco

Question 16

Clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage (1st Amendment).

Answer 16

Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Question 17

Freedom of Speech

Answer 17

1st Amendment

Question 18

Takings

Answer 18

5th Amendment

Question 19

Due Process

Answer 19

14th Amendment

Question 20

Set forth the “balancing of interests” approach for reviewing taking claims.

Answer 20

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon

Question 21

“Rational Nexus” Upheld an impact fee regulation based upon a formula used to calculate the fair share of the cost of road improvements in the county.

Answer 21

Home Builders and Contractors Association of Palm Beach v. Palm Beach County

Question 22

Taking, TDR, and the Tudor City Parks.

Answer 22

Fred F. French Investing Co. v. City of New

York

Question 23

Established the constitutional right of cities to set building heights by certain districts.

Answer 23

Welch v. Swasey

Question 24

A government should NOT be required to compensate property owners for every development moratorium, regardless of its purpose, duration, or potential impact on property values.

Answer 24

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Question 25

D.C. “urban renewal” upheld. “Blighted” private property may be taken for aesthetic and redevelopment “purposes” not just for a “public use.”

Answer 25

Berman v. Parker

Question 26

Brewery outlawed by state statute banning liquor sales as a “public nuisance.” Plaintiff argues 14th Amendment “taking” and “due process” violations. Decision dictated that this was abatement of a “nuisance” to “protect the health, public morals, or public safety.”

Answer 26

Mugler v. Kansas

Question 27

“Regulations to time orderly development.” Upheld an ordinance that prohibited further residential construction until local infrastructural facilities complied with specific “performance” standards.

Answer 27

Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Walnut Creek