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.
