Court Cases ++ Flashcards
Village of Belle Terre z. Boraas (1974)
I
W
P
Issue: Homeowner leased a house to a group of students, which violated the towns zoning. Belle Terre, NY.
Winner: Village of Belle Terre
Precedent: upheld constitutionality of zoning which limited the number of unrelated individuals living in a house.
which constitutional amendment guarantees eminent domain powers?
5th
What did the Supreme Court hold to strict scrutiny in Reed v. Town of Gilbert?
Sign Standards
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)
Issue
Winner
Precedent
Issue:
- Mahon purchased surface rights above PA Coal’s property.
- Kohler Act is passed, which prohibits mining that affects the integrity of the land.
- Mahon tries to use the Kohler Act to stop PA Coal’s mining activity.
Winner: PA Coal
Precedent: TAKINGS: The U.S. Supreme Court indicated, for the first time, that regulation of land use might be a taking. Kohler Act deemed unconstitutional.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926)
I
W
P
Issue: Village of Euclid, OH adopted a comprehensive plan that downzoned parts of it municipality. Ambler sued to develop more densely.
Winner: Village of Euclid
Precedent: ZONING: Zoning is a legitimate police power of local gov, as long as it is systematic and related to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Berman v. Parker (1954)
I
W
P
Issue: US legislature deemed a large area of land in DC as blighted and injurious to public health, and sought to redevelop entire area via eminent domain and give the land to another private party as part of the redevelopment. Berman sued to keep their property.
Winner: Gov, though they had to provide just compensation.
Precedents: TAKINGS. 5th AMEND.
- Established that aesthetics and redevelopment were valid public purposes for exercising the power of eminent domain.
- Courts will not get involved with details of takings, as long as the taking itself is constitutional.
- Gov can transfer private property from one owner to another if it serves a public purpose and they provide just compensation.
Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc. (1968)
I
W
P
Issue: Developer (Village 2) petitioned New Hope to amend comprehensive zoning ordinance to allow PUDs. Cheney + other abutters didn’t want higher density PUDs in their neighborhood.
Supreme Court of PA tried the issue.
Winner: Village 2, gov PUD ordinance upheld.
Precedent: Legitimized the planned unit development (PUD) process: ordinance creating a PUD district and authorizing the planning commission to approve the type, size, and location of buildings and uses within the district was not in violation of the municipal comprehensive plan or an illegal delegation of legislative power to the commission.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971)
I
W
P
Issue: Private citizens + local & national conservation groups challenge Sec of Transportation authorizing federal funds for highway construction through Overton Park in Memphis, TN, b/c the Secretary failed to make an independent determination.
Winner: Citizens
Precedent: “Hard look” doctrine for environmental impact reviews.
Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. US Atomic Energy Commission (1971)
I
W
P
Issue: citizen group brought charges against Atomic Energy for violating/not doing enough to satisfy NEPA.
Winner: Citizens (Calvert Cliffs’)
Precedent: NEPA: Made National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements judicially enforceable. Found Atomic Energy’s efforts to not be an exercise of “substantive discretion” to protect the environment “to the fullest extent possible”
How is Berman v. Parker related to housing?
Slum clearance
The redevelopment was supposed to include housing, ⅓ of which would be affordable housing.
How is Berman v. Parker related to nuisance regs?
Clearing slum housing as a public nuisance provided justification for the taking of private property for another private use.
Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)
I
W
P
Issue: STANDING: Using the Administrative Procedure Act, Sierra Club brought declaratory judgement to block federal officials (Secretary of the Interior Rogers Morton) for developing a ski resort within Sequoia National Forest.
Winner: Morton
Precedent: Denied the Sierra Club standing due to lack of particularized injury. But, famous dissent by Justice Douglas suggested environmental objects should be granted legal personhood by the public in response to ecological concerns.
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo (1972)
I
W
P
Issue: Growth management - Developer wants to create a subdivision. Town of Ramapo NY has zoned phased development tied to adequate public facilities - requiring a points-based special permit (that was almost impossible to achieve at that time) for land subdivision. Developer is challenging that this is unconstitutional overstep of the town’s enabling legislation.
Outcome: Rampao gov won
Precedent: growth management / concurrency/ adequate public facilities requirement is constitutional
14th amendment
Due process; equal protection; citizenship - came out of the civil war
Standing has different requirements by state and in the federal context. True or False
True
3 levels of scrutiny, and how they are different.
Rational basis
Intermediate scrutiny
Strict scrutiny
shifts burden of proof
horizontal intensity spectrum
what is required by a judgement of strict scrutiny?
requires the government to prove that:
- There is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and
- The law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result.
what is required by a judgement of intermediate scrutiny?
In order for a law to pass intermediate scrutiny, it must:
- Serve an important government objective, and
- Be substantially related to achieving the objective.
what is required by a judgement of rational basis?
burden of proof shifted to plaintiff. Person must prove that:
-The government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy;
OR
-There is no reasonable, rational link between that interest and the challenged law.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015)
I
W
P
Issue: Town of Gilbert has sign restrictions, including stricter restrictions for temporary direction signs. A church (Reed) was putting up temporary directional signs, and got charged with a violation.
Winner: Reed
Precedent: Town of Gilbert’s restrictions violated free speech b/c it’s regulations were content-based AND did not pass strict scrutiny (
Just v. Marinette County (1972)
Issue
Winner
Precedent
Issue: landowners suing Marinette County, WI for their shoreland zoning ordinance which curtailed or required a special permit for certain uses / redevelopment (filling) of shorelands and wetlands.
Winner: Marinette County
Precedent: Shoreland/wetlands regulations for the public good (health, safety, convenience, welfare, and TAX BASE) are constitutional
Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County (1973)
Issue
Winner
Precedent
Issue: In partnership/on request from developer, board of commissioners changed zoning for a 32 acre parcel from single family to planned residential (PUD). A mobile home park would be developed. Fasano plaintiff and residents sued city for zoning change.
Winner: Fasano (citizen)
Precedent: determining judicial review vs. legislative action for zoning: Because rezoning to permit a large mobile home PUD determined the rights of only a few landowners, the action was adjudicatory rather than legislative in character and the presumption of validity normally afforded local legislative acts did not apply. In such cases, the burden of justifying the rezoning falls on the party seeking the change, who must show that the change will be in accordance with the comprehensive plan
Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976)
I
W
P
Issue: Detroit passed zoning which regulated that adult uses (10 in total) had to be licensed and could not be located near other adult uses. Adult movie theater operators brought case for unconstitutional infringement of 1st amendment free speech and 14th amendment of equal protection.
Winner: Young
Precedent: Secondary Effects Doctrine: considers effects of businesses such as crime and reduction in property values as lowering the strict scrutiny threshold for free speech. Detroit could require dispersal of business to regulate “social problems”. It is constitutional for a city to treat adult cinema differently from ordinary cinema.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977)
I
W
P
Issue: Metro Housing sought a zoning amendment to construct racially integrated, low and moderate income multifamily housing in Village of Arlington Heights (Chicago). Village rejected request. On behalf of Black plaintiffs, Metro Housing sued Village on grounds of violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.
Winner: Village of Arlington Heights (gov)
Precedent: Proof of having racially discriminatory intent or purpose is REQUIRED for zoning to be deemed an Equal Protection Clause (14th amendment) violation, even if the zoning outcome is racially unjust
(Note: this case was deemed a rational basis judgement and burden of proof fell on Metro to prove discriminatory intent.)
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978)
I
W
P
Issue: TVA was constructing the Tellico Dam on the Little TN River when the 1973 Endangered Species Act was passed. Hill and other conservationists challenged that continued construction of the Dam would cause extinction for the snail darter fish.
Winner: Hill
Precedent: It is prohibited for federal action to put an endangered species’ critical habitat at risk. No grandfathering applies.
also, US legislative and judicial action cares more about endangered species than about Black people…
Penn Central Transportation Co. v The City of New York (1978)
Issue
Winner
Precedent
Issue: Owner of Penn Central Station wanted to build offices above the station, but was prevented from using the airspace above the station IN THIS MANNER because of the Landmarks Preservation Commission and their designation of Penn Central as a historic landmark
Winner: City of NY
Outcome: HISTORIC PRESERVATION PREVAILS: No taking had occurred, b/c the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) allowed owner to profit from sale of development in airspace above the station
Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980)
Issue: Resident owning land in newly zoned low-density residential area of Tiburon, CA sued gov for the consequent development restrictions on their land. Takings issue, 5th and 14th amendments.
Outcome: Tiburon gov won.
Precedent:
A gov action IS a taking if the ordinance:
–does not substantially advance legitimate state interests
or
–denies an owner economically viable use of his land
the public at large, rather than a single owner, must bear the burden of an exercise of state power in the public interest
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, (1981)
I
W
P
Issue: San Diego banned non-commercial and commercial off-site billboards (on private land) and therefore dealt with the First Amendment of the United States
Winner: Metromedia
Precedent: city law regulating billboards reached “too far into the realm of protected speech.”; commercial speech cannot be treated differently than non-commercial speech; the content of non-commercial speech cannot be regulated.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp (1982)
I
W
P
Issue: new NY legislation prohibits landlords from interfering with the installation of cable TV equipment on their property (side of building)
Winner: Loretto
Precedent: When gov action/reg constitutes a permanent physical invasion and occupation of property, it is automatically deemed to be a regulatory taking and requires just compensation.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel II (1983)
I
W
P
Issue: 8 years after Mt.Laurel I decision. 6 different exclusionary zoning cases are combined here. Low-income residents sued Mt.Laurel again for exclusionary zoning.
Winner: NAACP
Precedent: Affirmatively providing low/moderate income housing opportunities is necessary. Provided a “builder’s remedy” for developers to take action against towns for exclusionary zoning.
What is the Mt. Laurel I doctrine?
Municipalities must provide a realistic opportunity for low/moderate income housing through their land use / zoning regulations.
10th amendemnt
powers of local vs. state govs - Dillions Rule vs. Home Rule
10 States with statewide zoning
Hawaii
Oregon
Washington
TN
GA
FL
MD
NJ
RI
ME
When was Mt Laurel I case?
1975
Difference b/w physical taking vs. regulatory taking
A physical taking is eminent domain of entire property.
A regulatory taking is anything that is NOT an entire actual taking.f
Endangered Species Committee
nickname
origin
role
God Committee
Came out of the TVA v. Hill case. A federal group that considers economic factors in balance with conservation outcomes to provide exemptions to situations that fall under the Endangered Species Act.
Did just compensation have to be provided in Berman v. Parker?
Yes
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985)
I
W
P
Issue: The zoning for land where development was planned and had started changed, and developer (Hamilton Bank) could no longer continue with proposed development plan. Hamilton sued Commission for blocking development and alleged a regulatory taking had occurred.
Winner: no-one
Precedent: Hamilton’s takings claim was not ripe for adjudication. Defines two conditions for ripeness:
1) entity charged with doing the taking must reach a final decision about applying zoning to the property in debate.
2) plaintiff must try everything available to them to get compensation and still be denied compensation.
Because the developer/Hamilton had not applied for variances, neither of these conditions were fulfilled.
Setting: Tennessee
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County (1987)
I
W
P
Issue: Church campus was wiped out by flood. Los Angeles County temporarily adopted an ordinance that prohibited all (re)development in an interim flood protection area, which included church’s land. Church sued County as having made a regulatory taking.
Winner: Church
Precedent: gov cannot take a private property w/o providing just compensation.
Nollan v. California coastal Commission (1987)
I
W
P
Issue: Coastal Commission conditioned the approval of renovating a 1-story beach house to a 2-story beach house + garage on the owner sacrificing an easement for lateral beach access.
Winner: Nollan
Precedent: RATIONAL NEXUS / ESSENTIAL NEXUS - the condition imposed (dedication, exaction) must be rationally related to the public burden caused by the development. Requesting beach access was not related to the development.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
I
W
P
Issue: owner of two SC beach properties is barred from developing properties due to new Beachfront Management Act.
Winner: Lucas
Precedent: TOTAL TAKINGS TEST: Established that there are two discrete cases is which just compensation is ALWAYS required, no matter how permanent/temporary or how legitimate the state interest is.
1) permanent physical invasions
2) regulation denies ALL economically viable use of land
Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)
I
W
P
Issue: City conditioned Dolan’s redevelopment on an easement for stormwater management, a public bikeway. Dolan sued this as a taking and not w/i police powers.
Winner: Dolan
Precedent: ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY: Extended Nollan’s “essential nexus” test to require an individualized determination of “rough proportionality” in nature and extent b/w development impacts and conditions
Babbit v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995)
I
W
P
Issue: Plaintiffs Sweet Home (landowners and logging companies) challenged Fish and Wildlife Director, Sec of Int. Babbit’s interpretation of the word take –> harm in the Endangered Species Act
Winner: Babbit (Fish and Wildlife Directory, Sec of Int)
Precedent:
- harm means to “significantly modify or degrade habitat such that it kills or injures wildlife”
- where Congress has given the Sec. of Int. broad discretion to provide expertise for Endangered Species Act, including to reg the development permit process as related to the Act, the judiciary is reluctant to supplant authority
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)
Issue: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) imposed moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while formulating a comprehensive land-use plan. Petitioners filed suits claiming that TRPA’s actions constituted a taking of their property without just compensation.
Outcome: TRPA won.
Precedent: a TEMPORARY moratorium on land development does not constitute a taking of property, EVEN IF it does deprive all economical use; parcel-as-a-whole rule for takings review
What is the name of the planning movement that was the successor/second chapter of Garden Cities?
New Town Movement
Lewis Mumford and Catherine Bauer were key members of which group and when?
Regional Planning Association of America (1920s)
Concentric Zone urban design theory
person
date
concept
1925
Ernest Burgess
divides city into five concentric zones, with each ring devoted to a separate land use; assumes affluence is directly related to distance from Central Business District - the richer you are, the farther away from the CBD you live;
Sector urban design theory
person
date
content
Homer Hoyt
1930s
lateral extension of cities in wedge-shaped patterns; pattern is determined by the merging between: 1) axial growth (along transportation network routes), 2) residential nuclei beyond main urban area (*especially high-income residential areas), & 3) other isolated nuclei.
What new technology was a determining factor of the different urban design (form / function) theories?
the automobile
Multiple Nuclei design theory
person
date
content
Harris and Ullman
1945
land-uses are built around many central areas, which tend to include: central business district, wholesale & light manufacturing, heavy industrial, various residential, anchor institutions, cultural centers, suburbs, etc.
Based on the following assumptions: 1) certain activities need specialized facilities, 2) where economies of scale are possible, activities group together, 3) activities at odds with one another disperse, 4) activity cost / affordability
what was the national political context when the National Housing Acts began?
the Great Depression
When was the first time a federal act was passed regarding soil conservation?
1935 - Soil Conservation Act
Difference between 1906 and 1935 Antiquities Acts
1906 allowed the establishment of national monuments within land already in the Public Domain; 1935 incentivized the identification, acquiring, and restoration of historic sties.
Murr v. Wisconsin
Date
Issue
Winner
Precedent
2017
Issue: Murr’s inherited 2 parcel, which were to be merged according to regs. Murr’s sued, claiming that merging the properties was tantamount to a taking.
Winner: Wisconsin
3-factor, context-specific test to define the “denominator” in the takings equation:
1) treatment of land under state and local law
2) physical characteristics of land
3) prospective value of regulated land
Takings equation
Diminution in value (due to reg) / Value of the Property (prior to reg)
Which eminent domain precedent was et by Kelo v. New London?
Eminent domain for economic devopment
What is the only state that grants home rule powers evenly across counties and cities?
Florida
Are more states home rule or Dillions rule?
Dillions Rule
Which amendment is related the the regulation of adult uses?
1st amendment - speech, expression
Which amendment / issue is Mugler v. Kansas associated with?
5th amendment - takings
14th amendment - due process / police powers
Which amendment / issue is Koontz v. St Johns River Management District associated with?
5th - takings
14th - due process
Which amendment / issue is Spur Industries v. Del Web associated with?
14th / 5th - due process
Which amendment / issue is Penn Central Transportation v. NYC associated with?
Due Process - 5th and 14th
What court case established Dillions Rule?
Hunter v. City of Pittsburg (1907)
Under Dillions Rule, what does the State regulate/have power over?
The state can take municipal land without compensation and do whatever it wants with it; revoke charters and municipal corporations; annul local regulations
Amendments associated with Mt. Laurel I and II
Equal protection (14th) Delegated power (10th)
Amendments associated with Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission?
Takings (5th) Delegated powers (10th)
What amendments are associated with Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Centers?
Equal protection (14th)
What were / are superblocks used for?
You can’t drive through superblocks
Creating PUDs that are removed from the city grid.
Creating pedestrian friendly dpaces
FAR (def)
Floor Area Ratio - gross floor area / land parcel area
Eg: FAR 1.0 can be 4 story building on 25% of the land area
4 components of RLUIPA
- Land use regs cannot “substantially burden” religious institutions unless there is a “compelling interest”
- Religious institutions must be treated on equal terms with non-religious institutions
- Certain religions cannot be discriminated against as compared to others
- Religious institutions cannot be entirely excluded
First major US environmental law, and when
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1970
