Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

AICP > Court Cases > Flashcards

Court Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA)

A

The act declares that governments cannot implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial lender or religious assembly unless the government demonstrates a compelling government interest.

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

Southern Burlington County NAACP V Township of Mount Laurel; NJ Supreme Ct. (1975)

A

Mount Laurel held exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low-moderate income housing. The court required the town to open its doors to all income levels.

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

Nollan V California Coastal Council (1987)

A

Nolan’s request to build their home did not further the government’s interest in overcoming a perceived psychological barrier to using the beach and the veto a regulatory taking without just compensation violating the 5th

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

Construction Industry of Sonoma County vs City of Petaluma (1975)

A

Upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.

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

Reed v Town of Gilbert

A

US Supreme Court found that city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signage directing the public to a meeting them on signs conveying other messages. The sign ordinance was not content neutral.

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

Village of Euclid V Ambler Realty

A

Upheld modern zoning as proper use of police power. Village of Euclid’s zoning ordinance did not violate due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. Alfred Bettmen filed influential brief with court.

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

Agis V City of Tiburon

A

Court upheld a city’s right to zone a property at low density and determined that zoning is not a taking.

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

Kaiser Aetna V United States

A

Court ruled that the governement could not require public access without invoking eminent domain and paying just compensation.

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

Cutter V Wilkinson

A

Religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000 is a constitutional accommodation under 1st amendment’s establishment clause/

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

Eubank V City of Richmond (1912)

A

Specific statute regulating building lines (setbacks) in this case was an unreasonable exercise of police power. Decision did not suggest that states and municipalities lacked the power to regulate building lines.

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

Warren V Main Board of Environmental Protection (2006)

A

Hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

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

Federal Communications Commission v Florida Power Corp (1987)

A

Public utilities challenged federal statute that authorized FCC to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable tv operators for the use of utility poles, No taking had occurred.

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

Loretto v Teleprompter Manhatton CATV Corp (1982)

A

A cable television company cable installation constituted a taking requiring just compensation.

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

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association V DeBenedictis (1987)

A

Enactment of regulations requiring coal companies to maintain surface support for dwellings did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interstate protected by the act.

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

Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

A

Suitum did not have to attempt to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking suit.

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

City of Monterey v Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.

A

Repeated denials of permits deprive the owner of all economically viable use of the land.

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

Palazzolo v Rhode Island (2001)

A

The acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar a regulatory taking.

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

Tahoe-Sierra Preservative Council Inc. V Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)

A

Moratoria does not constitute a taking requiring just compensation.

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

Lingle V Chevron USA Inc

A

The takings clause challenges had to based on the severity of the burdon that regulations imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furthering a government interest

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

City of Rancho Palos Verdes V Abrams (2005)

A

A licensed radio operator that was denied a CUP for an antenna could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the telecommunications act of 1996.

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

City of Boerne V Flores (1997)

A

Case challenged Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Court ruled that the act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers.

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

Koontz v St. John’s River Water Management (2012)

A

There was no specific regulation requiring mitigation work to get a permit. A taking had occurred.

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

Metromedia Inc. V City of San Diego (1981)

A

Court found that commercial and noncommercial speech can be treated differently. Overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned all noncommercial signs.

24
Q

Brandt Revocable Trust V United States (2013)

A

Court found that when an easement is abandoned (in this case for a railroad right of way) the easement disappears and bond reverts to previous owner.

25
Q

US V Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)

A

1st significant case dealing with historic preservation. Ruled that acquisition of national battlefield of gettysburg served a valid public purpose.

26
Q

TVA v Hill (1978)

A

Court upheld that the snail dorter is protected by the endangered species act and a dam project could be blocked, even though congress contributed to fund the dam and stated that it should be completed.

27
Q

Moore V City of East Cleveland (1977)

A

Housing Ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit for members of a single family. Violated moore’s rights as it constituted “intrusive regulation of the family” without accruing some tangible state interest.

28
Q

Spur Industries v Webb Development Company (1972)

A

Feedlots next to suncity retirement community were both public and private nuisance. However, the developer, having brought people to the nuisance was required to compensate spur industries for the costs of relocating or shuttling down the feedlots.

29
Q

Mulger V Kansas (1887)

A

Law prevented sell or manufacture of liquor. Mulger was arrested for making and selling beer. Decided with Kansas v Ziebold. Important steps toward court’s acceptance of economic due process under 14th amendment. On appeal mulger denied police power was so broad to prohibit the manufacture of beer for private consumption or out of state sell. Deprived property without du process.

30
Q

Stop the Beach Renourishing Inc. V Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)

A

Submerged lands that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation (in violation of 5th and 14th amendments)

31
Q

City of Edmonds v Oxford House Inc (1995)

A

City’s zoning definition of family which excluded a group home, violated the fair housing act.

32
Q

Massachusetts V EPA Inc (2006)

A

EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gasses.

33
Q

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs V Inclusive Communities Project Inc (2015)

A

Policies that even inadvertently regulate minorities to poor areas violate the fair housing act.

34
Q

Munn v Illinois (1876)

A

A state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. Established principal of public regulating private business in the public interest.

35
Q

Fifth Amendment

A

Just compensation for takings.

36
Q

Kelo v City of New London (2005)

A

Economic Development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain.

37
Q

Penn Central Transportation Company v City of New York (1978)

A

New York City Landlords Preservation Law as applied to Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking.

38
Q

Welch v Swasey (1909)

A

Established right of municipalities to regulate building height.

39
Q

Berman v Parker (1954)

A

Aesthetics is a valid public purpose. Urban Renewal is a valid public purpose.

40
Q

Young v American Minitheaters (1972)

A

Upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit

41
Q

City of Renton v Playtime Theaters Inc (1986)

A

Upheld zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. The city does not have to guarantee that there is land available for the use. Cannot be entirely prohibited.

42
Q

Village of Belle Terre V Borass (1974)

A

Upheld zoning regulation that prohibited more than 2 unrelated individuals from living together as a single family. Court extended the concept of zoning to include a community’s desire for a certain type of lifestyle.

43
Q

Village of Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977)

A

An affordable housing developer was denied a rezoning of a property from single-family to multi-family. Court fount there was insufficient evidence to prove that the village acted in a racially dissimilatory manner.

44
Q

City of Los Angeles V Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)

A

Regulations of signs is valid for aesthetic reasons as long as ordinance does not regulated the content of the sign. Aesthetics does advance a legitimate state interest.

45
Q

Fred French Investing Comp[any V City of NYNY Court of Appeals

A

City regulation required the placement of a public park on private property, leaving no income producing use of the property. Court invalidated regulation, but it was not ruled as a taking that should receive just compensation.

46
Q

Associated Home Builders of East Bay v City of Livermore (1976)

A

Upheld ordinance that prohibited issuance of building permits until sewage disposal, water supply, and local education facilities were in compliance with specified standards.

47
Q

City of Ladue v Gilleo (1994)

A

City’s law prohibiting a window sign was a violation of free speech under the 1st amendment.

48
Q

Lucas V South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

A

there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value after the regulation is in place. Lucas purchased the land prior to developmental regulations being put in place and so regulation constitutes a taking.

49
Q

First English Lutheran Church v City of Los Angeles (1987)

A

If a property is unusable for a period of time, not only can ordinance be set aside, but property owner can subject government to pay for the damages.

50
Q

Nollan v California Coastal Council (1987)

A

Nollan’s request to rebuild their home did not further government’s interest in overcoming a perceived psychological barrier to using the beach and the condition was a regulatory taking.

51
Q

Penn Central Transpiration V City of NY (1978)

A

NYC Preservation law as applied to grand central terminal did not constitute a taking.

52
Q

Pennsylvania Coal vs Mahon (1922)

A

If a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. 1st ruling to define “taking: under 5th amendment.

53
Q

Rapanos V US (2006)

A

Army Corps of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and movable waterway.

54
Q

Nectow V City of Cambridge (1928)

A

2 years after Euclid v Ambler, supreme court used rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance stating that it had no valid public purpose and was in violation of due process. Established limitations on zoning.

55
Q

Hadacheck V Sebastian (1915)

A

1st approved regulations of location of land uses. Zoning ordinance in LA prohibited production of bricks in a specific location did not violate due process and equal protection clause of 14th amendment.

56
Q

Fourteenth Amendment

A

Due process. substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection.

AICP (2 decks)

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