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.
