Court Cases Flashcards
Southern Burlington NAACP v. Mount Laurel
1975 - Court held that the zoning ordinance, which effectively deprived adequate housing for the poor and discriminated against them, was unconstitutional and invalid. Zoning ordinance was considered exclusionary for depriving poor of adequate housing. “Mount Laurel Doctrine.”
Agins v. Tiburon
1980 - Application of general zoning law to a property effects a taking if the ordinance doesn’t substantially advance legitimate state interest or denies an ower economically viable use of their land. In this case the zoning ordinance substantially advanced legitimate governmental goals: protection of residents from the ill effects of urbanization. Supreme Court affirmed that the zoning ordinance on their face do not take the property without just compensation.
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.
1976 - Opened up the possibility to control pornography via land use.
Special requirements applicable to adult theatres and bookstores upheld.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
1982 - Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimis.
State law that required landlords to permit installation of cable television facilities on their property constituted a taking because it was a physical invasion of permanent duration. Permanence is key.
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon
1922 - A statute forbidding coal mining under private dwellings or streets in areas where the right to mine is reserved is unconstitutional, as a taking of property without due process. If a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking and compensation must be paid.
Penn Central Transportation v. City of New York
1978 - Famous TDR Example. Application of landmark preservation law is not a taking; restriction of use of air space above terminal is not a taking since property can still be used for original purpose. Also about the denominator problem–what is the denominator of the ownership fraction?
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
1987 - Started “Essential Nexus” test. CCC made conditional approval on Nollan’s beachfront property if there was an easement for public beach. Court found that if CCC wants an easement, they should compensate the Nolan’s.
Spur Industries v. Del Webb
1972 - AZ Supreme Court - Spur’s cattle feed lots were considered a nuisance to the Sun City development of Del Webb. An injunction was granted holding the lots were a public nuisance, but Sun City “came to a nuisance” and was required to pay relocation and damages to Spur.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
1926 - Ruled zoning as a reasonable extension of Village’s police power and speculation was not a valid basis for a taking claim.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles
1987 - 5th Amendment case. A church camp was flooded and they were not allowed to use their campground due to a 6 year prohibition on building in a flood zone. Considered a taking and ruled that temporary takings are still takings.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
1992 - 5th Amendment Case. The Beachfront Management Act rendered Lucas’ property valueless. SCOTUS ruled against lower court saying this was a taking because it deprived all economic use, and started the “Total Takings Test.”
Dolan v. City of Tigard
1994 - 5th Amendment case. Tigard set conditional approval on the expansion of Dolan’s store if he provided a public greenway and bike lane along the property’s creek. The court found the City’s request reasonable passing the “Essential Nexus” test, but the degree of the condition was excessive, and ruled a taking on those grounds. Led to “Rough Proportionality” test.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
1915 - Hadcheck was a brickmaker in a residential area of LA. Considered a violation of the ordinance, not a taking, and a proper use of police power.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
2002 - 5th Amendment case. Moratorium on the construction of homes for approximately 32 months while developing a Comprehensive Plan was not a taking.
Golden v. Ramapo
1972 - Challenged performance zoning. Ramapo restricted residential growth until services and facilities could support it. Golden was considered within its rights to do so.
Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope
1968 - PA Supreme Court - Court upheld that a PUD was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and was not considered illegal spot zoning. Neighbors were plaintiffs and did not want to see Cheney’s development.
Metromedia v. San Diego
1981 - 1st Amendment case - Prohibitions on billboards were struck down because they did not pursue a sufficient government interest. Ruled that billboards were allowed and that commercial billboards could not be treated more harshly than non-commercial ones.
Mt. Laurel II
1983 - Supreme Court of NJ - Follows up on Mt. Laurel I and gave teeth to it. Required municipalities to build their fair share of affordable housing.
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
1977 - 14th Amendment Case - A Chicago suburb had a zoning ordinance that practically worked as exclusionary zoning by only allowing single-family homes. The Court of Appeals ruled this unconstitutional because of its obvious discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court reversed this.
Rohn v. City of Visalia
1989 - CA Court of Appeals - The court ruled that if the City wants a portion of Rohn’s property to correct the adjacent street it must pay for Rohn’s land. A conditional approval and permit issuance could not be used to make this street correction.
Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates
2002 - The Town granted conditional approval of a residential subdivision based on the developer rebuilding an abutting road. The Court found this as a taking because the Town could not prove the road improvements had a relationship to the subdivision.
Sparks v. Douglas County
1995 - WA Supreme Court - Question of whether a Right-of-Way Dedication as a conditional approval is a taking or capricious. It was not a taking based on the “Rough Proportionality” test (Dolan test).
Williams v. City of Central
A moratorium of the development of a theater in
a gaming district for 10 months was not a taking. The theater was purchased while the area changed to a gaming district. Interim regulation is not a taking unless it causes extraordinary delay.
Millbrae Association for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae
1968 - CA Court of Appeals - The Planning Commission exceeded its authority in approving a Precise Plan since it differed substantially from the Project Plan.
Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth v. METRO
2002 - Tested the Urban Growth Boundary in Portland. The Court upheld the addition of 354 acres to the buildable land within the UGB.
Dateline Builders, Inc. v City of Santa Rosa
1983 - The City could refuse services as a public utility. The extension of a sewer line into a development outside the City boundaries would be inconsistent with the City’s plan. Growth management was considered a proper use of Police Power.
Palm Beach County v. William Wright
1994 - FL Supreme Court - Land zoned in the Comprehensive Plan for a future highway restricted other land uses. This does not constitute a taking. The adoption of the proposed map was constitutional because it was planning for the future best interest of the County. Individual properties within the map may be takings and would be compensated, but the whole map was not a taking.
Gardner v. NJ Pinelands Commission
1991 - Restrictions on land use in an environmentally sensitive area are only a taking if they deny all practice use. Gardner was still able to farm with environmental regulations. Economic burdens of the regulations were spread to property owners within the entire Comprehensive Plan area.
Buchanan v. Simplot Feeders
1998 - US District Court - Buchanan’s neighbors were always a feedlot, but Simplot purchased it in 1991 and ramped up production. Nuisance protection from right-to-farm laws must be applied narrowly and cautiously and should not insulate agriculture, especially if the agriculture was there before the nuisance activity was established.
State ex. rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkley
1970 - Stoyanoff tried to build a house with modern architecture. The Board denied a permit due to nonconformance of style. The Court ordered the City to issue the permit because the zoning ordinance denied Stoyanoff’s use of property without due process. The Ordinance was constitutional according to SCOTUS because property value rules are necessary and aesthetics are reason enough to protect those.
Anderson v. City of Issaquah
1993 - WA Appellate Court - 5th Amendment Case. Unreasonable to expect applicants for variances to pay for repetitive revisions to comply with unarticulated and unpublished statements from the community. Anderson had made all the changes and was still denied.
Figarsky v. Historic District Commission
1976 - Court recognizes aesthetics as a proper use of police power. In Norwich, CT, the attempted demolition of a historic building was denied. It was not considered a taking unless it destroys or greatly reduces property value.
Fred F. Finch Investing v. City of New York
1976 - 5th Amendment Case - NYC rezoned two private parks of the Tudor City Apartment Complex as public parks. Though it caused the owner a disproportionate economic burden, it was not a compensated taking–the regulation was just removed.
Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp.
1932 - NY Supreme Court - Private nuisance case. Bove’s building existed before the Coke Corporation but the Coke Corporation’s usual business activities resulted in reasonable legal pollution.
Ben Lomond Inc. v. Anchorage
1988 - AK Supreme Court - Lomond wanted to renovate dilapidated building. Anchorage mistakenly issued building permits and revoked them. The owner never repealed the revocation or sought a variance. The inaction deprived the City of the opportunity to make a factual record of the error. The owner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the building was demolished.
City of Los Angeles v. Gage
1954 - CA Appellate Court - Zoning of Gage’s location was changed from Commercial to Residential. Zoning ordinance eliminated nonconforming uses and was constitutional in its use of police power. Gage was given time to move his plumbing business and constitutionality was considered dependent on relative public gain compared to private loss.
Krause v. City of Royal Oak
1968 - 5th Amendment Case. Krause owned a Single Family home and the City wanted to rezone it to Multi-Family. The Supreme Court ruled that the City can regulate density.
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
1974 - 14th Amendment Case. The Court upheld the constitutionality of zoning that limited the number of unrelated individuals. Based on SUNY students in house that got evicted.
State of NJ v. Dennis Baker
1979 - NJ Supreme Court - Redefined “Family.” The ordinance was considered too narrow in its definition, and families can live together as long as they pose no threat to the style of family in the zoning.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland
1977 - Moore’s grandchild lived with her in East Cleveland. Zoning prohibited this. It was declared unconstitutional because it violates due process by intruding on family sanctity and not advancing city goals.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center
1985 - Special Use Permits Case. Cleburne Living Center was not permitted to build a group home. The Court said the ordinance was not constitutional via the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Intellectually Disabled people cannot be considered suspect.
Johnson v. Town of Edgartown
1997 - Plaintiff claimed the town’s 3-acre zoning requirement was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Court found it was reasonable for the purpose of protecting Edgartown Pond, which was rational and promoted public welfare.
Ensign Bickford Realty Corp. v. City Council
1997 - CA Court of Appeals - Property was zoned CN when bought in 1968 but rezoned to R-4 in 1974. Bickford was denied the right to change zoning back to Commercial. The Court ruled that the City acted reasonably and established a rational basis for the denial.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc.
1985 - 1st Amendment Case. Adult theatres were prohibited within 1000 feet of a residential zone with churches, parks, or schools. Zoning was unconstitutional because instead of an outright ban it told the theater where to locate. Therefore a time, place, and manner regulation.
First Assembly of God of Naples v. Collier County
1994 - FL Court of Appeals - The Church claimed the local zoning violated due process and the free exercise clause of 1A. The church ran a homeless shelter which was called a nonconforming use by the County. The Court upheld the ordinance because it was neutral and not meant to oppress as it allowed homeless shelters, just not in that zone.
Huntington Branch NAACP v. Town of Huntington
1988 - Fair Housing Act case. Zoning ordinance restricted multi-family housing to a predominantly black area and a MF building could not be constructed in a white area. Found that discrimination did not need to be intended but if it’s the result it still violates FHA.
Larkin v. State of Michigan Department of Social Services
1995 - Adult foster care facility in Westland, MI. A Licensing Act from the State violated the protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but didn’t violate the Fair Housing Act because the Michigan Law could not be waived.
Puritan-Greenfield Association v. Leo
1967 - Michigan Appellate Court - Leo wanted to turn a Single Family Home into a family house and medical clinic. Leo applied for a parking variance citing hardship. The Court found this unsubstantiated and did not grant the variance.
Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Southland Corp.
1982 - VA Supreme Court - Distinguished “quick service food” from grocery stores. Southland runs 7-11s which must be free-standing. Fairfax had additional construction fees for free-standing buildings in commercial zones and for special use permits. Prevented construction. Court upheld the zoning but called it “debatable.”
Crooked Creek Conservation & Gun Club v. Hamilton County North Board of Zoning & Samuel R. Hiser
1997 - Zoning board denied gun club’s application for special exception in property zoned for agricultural and residential uses based on public hazard and noise nuisances. Denial was upheld.
Western Land Equities Inc. v. City of Logan
1980 - UT Supreme Court - About retroactive application of zoning laws. Applicant for subdivision permit is entitled to favorable action if the application conforms to the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of the application, not the changed one.
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
1978 - First interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. Protected the Snail Darter by prohibiting completion of the Telico Dam.
Berman v. Parker
1954 - Eminent Domain case. Interpreted Takings Clause of 5th Amendment. Holds that private property can be taken for public reasons with just compensation. Aesthetics and redevelopment are valid reasons.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
1971 - Basic legal framework for suits against administrative agencies. “Hard Look” Doctrine for environmental reviews. Private citizens and conservation stopped the DOT from building a highway through Overton Park in Memphis. DOT could not build the highway if “feasible and prudent” alternatives exist.
Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission
1971 - First interpretation of NEPA in DC Circuit Court. Incorporated NEPA as enforceable.
Sierra Club v. Morton
1972 - Allowed environmental citizen suits to discipline resource agencies.
Just v. Marinette County
1972 - Integrated public land trusts and upheld them as constitutional. Shoreland zoning ordinance created conservancy for recreation in inland lakes. Landowner has no absolute and unlimited right to change natural character of the land.
Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County
1972 - Attempt to rezone land to get a mobile park using PUD. Because a PUD rezone determined the rights of only a few landowners, it was adjudicatory and not legislative. The burden of justifying zoning change goes to the owner, who must show its agreement with Comprehensive Plan. Spot zoning meets public needs and the need must best be served when rezoning happens.
Williamson County Regional Planning Council v. Hamilton Bank
1985 - Claim that the agency’s land-use requirements violated Just Compensation and Due Process clauses. Not ripe for adjudication and no decision ever made.
Knick v. Township of Scott, PA
2019 - Overruled Williamson. Allows taking compensations to be addressed directly through Federal Court. Farmland was claimed as a cemetery through zoning and required a right-of-way. Knick beat zoning.
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon
1995 - Applied Endangered Species Act to land development. Secretary of Interior’s “harm” definition to endangered species is valid when “significant modification of habitat degrades and kills wildlife.”
Kuehne v. Town of East Hartford
1950 - CT Supreme Court - Because zoning must agree with the Comprehensive Plan, spot zoning is contrary to the plan.
Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder
1993 - FL Supreme Court - Because zoning is quasi-judicial in its review process, it must meet stricter judicial review standards.
Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown
1951 - Power of the village to amend its basic zoning ordinance in a manner that promotes the general welfare cannot be questioned.
Collard v. Incorporated Village of Flower Hill
1981 - When the rezoning is conditional on no new construction without consent, the City does not have to consent to the construction or give a valid reason for the rejection.
Haines v. City of Phoenix
1986 - AZ Supreme Court - The court affirmed the authority to rezone height regulations.
City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises
1976 - Respondent tried to rezone a parcel. During the process City voters changed the charter for a 55% ratification for zoning approval. The delegation of power to a referendum did not violate the applicant’s due process.
Garipay v. Town of Hanover
1976 - NH Supreme Court - Subdivision was rejected because of the inadequacy of a town-owned road. The court found offsite actors can be taken into consideration. Court rejected argument that the proposed development was not “scattered or premature” because prematurity is a relative rather than an absolute concept.
Baker v. Planning Board of Framingham
1967 - MA Supreme Court - Planning Board may not exercise authority to disapprove a plan so a town may continue to use owner’s land as a water storage area and deprive the owner of reasonable use.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
1984 - Allowed state to use eminent domain for land that was overly private and redistribute it for public residents.
Kelo v. City of New London
2005 - 5th Amendment Case. Eminent domain could be used to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The condemned property that the City allowed to be transferred because the Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan was clearly in public interest.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
2001 - 5th Amendment Case. Landowner was denied permit to infill wetlands. Landowner purchased the title after the effective date of the legislation. Court ruled that regulatory taking claims are still allowed after enactment.
Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District
2013 - 5th Amendment Case. Koontz had to pay to fix drainage to build a mall. Money was considered property and money extraction is subject to “essential nexus” test.
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House
1995 - Fair Housing Act case. Looked at the building of group homes and the definition of “family” where it was subject to FHA.
Lingle v. Chevron, USA
2005 - 5th Amendment Case. Hawaii enacted rent control on Chevron-owned gas stations to keep gas prices down. Chevron argued under Agins but the court redirected it to a Due Process case. Ruled in favor of Hawaii because not all economically viable use was taken.
Stop the Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2010 - 5th Amendment Case. Beachfront property owners sued to stop the replacement of sand post-hurricanes. Not a taking because submerged land was still owned by the State even after new sand was added. States can infill sand without infringing on property rights in littoral areas.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert
2015 - 1st Amendment Case. Gilbert had restrictions on ideological and political signs. A church had directional signs up for events and was fined. Court recognized that nonpolitical signs were treated more unfairly than political signs.
Murr v. Wisconsin
2017 - Is a regulatory taking on one lot a taking of both? Leads to three factor denominator test: 1) Whether state treats land as single or multiple parcels 2) Physical characteristics of property 3) Value of property under the challenged regulation. This particular case was not a taking.
Munn v. Illinois
1876 - 14th Amendment Case. Upheld the power of state governments to regulate private industries that affect the common good. Set max rates charged to farmers storing grain.
Austin v. Older
1938 - Allows limitations on expanding nonconforming uses in Michigan.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Plannign Council
1997 - Tahoe Planning Council determined Suitum’s land was undevelopable and gave her TDR. She did not want TDR and did not try to sell them. Supreme Court ruled she did not have to attempt to sell to claim a taking.
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictus
1982 - Court upheld the state’s right to limit coal mining damage to buildings.
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd
The court repeatedly denied a large multi-family apartment on beachfront property, even though it aligned with Comp Plan. The court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.
Brandt Trust v. US
2013 - In 1875 the Railroad Right of Way Act granted an easement for Railroad Land. When the Railroad abandons the land, the easement disappears.
Massachusetts v. EPA
2006 - The EPA must provide reasonable justification for why it didn’t regulate greenhouse gases.
Rapanos v. US
2006 - Army Corps of Engineers must determine if there is a “significant nexus” between wetlands and navigable waterways.
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection
2006 - Hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project
2015 - Asked if disparate impact was the appropriate means to evaluate the FHA. ICP alleged that tax credits were only going to minority neighborhoods. The Court ruled that disparate impact is appropriate.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams
2005 - Private citizen put radio up, City made him get conditional use permit because he was doing commercial radio. He got the permit but was still denied. The Court he could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Mugler v. Kansas
1887 - 14th Amendment. Mugler was a brewer in the temperance era. Tried to claim preventing sale of alcohol was a taking and against due process, was rebuked.
Eubank v. City of Richmond
1912 - 14th Amendment. Richmond established building lines upon request as long as someone owned 2/3 of the property. Considered a taking for the other 1/3.
Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission
1980 - 1st Amendment. Overruled a ban on ads from the local electric utility.
Hills v. Dorothy Guatreaux
1976 - Section 8 Family moved to suburbs. Was allowed to do so. Concentrated poverty can be fought by deconcentration.
Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. Petaluma
1975 - Petaluma was allowed to curb population growth by limiting the number of building permits granted
Nectow v. City of Cambridge
1928 - SCOTUS found the locus of the zoning ordinance intruded on Nectow’s property and did not promote health, safety, or convenience for the City.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo
1994 - 1st Amendment. A municipal ordinance aiming to reduce visual clutter through the regulation of signs in the yards of private homes that prohibits protected speech may violate the First Amendment if the ordinance cannot pass strict scrutiny.
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes
1999 - Multiple denials of a 190-unit property even though it was consistent with Comprehensive Plan. SCOTUS called this a taking.
