Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

AICP > Courts > Flashcards

Courts Flashcards

0
Q

Fasano 1973

A
  • Mobile home park
  • Burden of changing a zoning regulation falls on party seeking the change
  • Change must be consistent with comprehensive plan
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Agins 1980

A
  • Substantially advances test
  • Open space requirements do not constitute a taking
  • Not a taking if it advances a legitimate governmental interest
  • Related case is Lingle v. Chevron 2005, which removed substantially advances test
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park 1971

A
  • “Hard look” doctrine for environmental impact review

- Decision to place highway in park overturned - no alternate routes were considered

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

General Electric Co. 1990

A

Validated CERCLA/Superfund

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

Gettysburg Electric Railway Co. 1896

A
  • Acquisition of national battlefield at Gettysburg was a legitimate public purpose
  • First significant historic preservation case
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church 1987

A
  • Taking
  • Flood destroyed church’s campground buildings
  • LA adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting construction or reconstruction in an area that included the campground
  • SCt found that flood destroyed all reasonable economic use of land and that a taking had occurred
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Babbitt 1996

A
  • SCt ruled that government can restrict land development to protect an endangered species and does not constitute a taking
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Just 1972

A
  • WI SCt - restricting development on wetlands
  • Established environmental protection regulations covered by police power
  • Concluded that natural state of shore supersedes landowner’s right to develop
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Sierra Club 1972

A
  • Sierra Club did not have standing to sue US Forest Service because it had not suffered economic, aesthetic, or environmental injury
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Storer 1956

A
  • Aesthetics can be regulated as part of police power

- Pertained to hanging unsightly apparel on a clothesline

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

East Cleveland 1977

A
  • Occupancy restrictions
  • Due process
  • SCt struck down ordinance preventing closely-related individuals from living together
  • In this case, it was a grandmother and grandkids
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Playtime Theaters 1986

A
  • Sexually-oriented businesses
  • First Amendment
  • Separation or concentration requirements for adult uses permissible if substantial government interest exists
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Kelo 2005

A

SCt ruled that economic development is a valid use of eminent domain if part of development plan

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

Penn Central 1978

A
  • Upheld historic preservation ordinances
  • Prevented developers from acquiring air rights to build high rise over Grand Central Terminal
  • Owner could transfer development rights
  • Equal protection and due process
  • Looked at whether permit denial constituted regulatory taking
  • Looked at character of government action
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Pennsylvania Coal Co. 1922

A
  • Land use restriction constituted a taking
  • A taking requires loss of all reasonable use
  • Basis for transfer of development rights and air rights above stations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Village of Belle Terre 1974

A
  • Occupancy restrictions
  • Due process, Equal Protection, freedom of association
  • SCt permitted prohibitions against more than two unrelated persons sharing a home - SUNY Stony Brook
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Cleburne 1985

A
  • Rational basis
  • SCt ruled that city of Cleburne, TX could not deny permit for retarded group home because there was no rational basis for the prohibition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Dolan 1994

A
  • Rough proportionality
  • Storeowner to be allowed to expand business only if a portion of land was dedicated to a greenway
  • Court ruled that such permit conditions are permissible only if the land dedication relates to the impact of the proposed development
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Nollan 1987

A

Essential nexus

Requiring landowners on beach to develop a property only if an easement is provided is a taking

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

Village of Arlington Heights 1977

A
  • Chicago suburb
  • Church wants to build public housing in white suburb; city refuses to rezone the property
  • Negative racial impact without proof of intent but Fair Housing Act may apply
  • Does not violate the 14th Amendment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Fred French Investing 1976

A

SCt ruled that TDR did not provide adequate compensation for rendering a property unsuitable for use

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

Hadechek 1915

A
  • Pre-zoning regulations

- Established that government could restrict nuisance uses (industrial) as part of police power

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

Golden 1972

A

Allowed local governments to control phased growth and performance criteria on the basis of adequate public facilities

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

Lingle 2005

A
  • Affirmed Agins v Tiburon
  • Restrictions on land use
  • Due process, not takings clause
  • Clarified “substantially advances” test
  • Government must pay if regulations destroy economic value of a project
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Lucas 1992

A
  • Restrictions on land use
  • Takings Clause - coastal setback
  • Landowner successfully challenged a coastal zone protection law
  • SCt ruled that regulations denying all economic use is a taking unless existing property and nuisance law prohibits such use
25
Q

Construction Industry of Sonoma County 1971

A

Petaluma allowed to restrict building permits to preserve “orderly” growth
Due process - system establishing annual building permit cap was upheld
Related to growth management

26
Q

Village of Willowbrook 1999

A
  • Equal protection can be brought by a “class of one”

- Olech was protesting heightened sewer easement of 33 feet versus the stand 15 feet

27
Q

American Mini Theaters 1976

A
  • Sexually-oriented businesses
  • First Amendment; Equal Protection
  • Detroit permitted to use zoning control to limit sex theaters and stores from certain other uses
28
Q

Berman 1954

A
  • Public use in eminent domain
  • Allowed a redevelopment program to shift public property to private lands
  • Establish aesthetics and redevelopment as valid public purposes
29
Q

Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council 2002

A

Concerns moratoria
Stevens land use regulations are ubiquitous and most impact property
Treating all as per se takings would transfer government regulations into a luxury
Use of moratoria and reaffirmed the parcel-as-a-whole rule for takings review. Development moratoria are not a taking, but should be analyzed

30
Q

Metromedia 1981

A
  • Signs and billboards
  • First Amendment
  • Invalidated tighter restrictions on signs bearing non-commercial messages
  • City may ban billboards, but needs to be content neutral and must be a compelling state interest
31
Q

Tennessee Valley Authority 1978

A
  • Secretary of Interior has authority to decide if a federal activity threatens or endangers a list species
32
Q

Euclid 1926

A

Upheld zoning as a valid exercise of police power

33
Q

Cheney 1968

A

Legitimized the planned unit development process

34
Q

Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee 1971

A

Made National Environmental Protection Act requirements enforceable

35
Q

Loretto 1982

A

Any physical occupation is taking, no matter how minimal. Based on state law requiring landlords to permit cable facilities on property.

36
Q

Hamilton Bank 1985

A

Defined the ripeness doctrine for judicial review of takings claims

37
Q

Mount Laurel 2 1983

A
  • Housing
  • Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning
  • Equal protection
  • Obligation to accommodate
38
Q

Babbitt v Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon 1995

A

Applied the Endangered Species Act to land development

40
Q

Taxpayers for Vincent 1984

A
  • Signs and billboards
  • Ruled that LA violated the First Amendment provision of free speech by banning noncommercial signage on public property
41
Q

City of Ladue 1994

A

SCt ruled that city could not ban someone from posting a noncommercial window sign in residence

42
Q

Suitum 1994

A

Undeveloped lot and whether property owner must attempt to sell developmental rights before claiming taking
Determined that case was ripe for adjudication

43
Q

Del Monte Dunes 1999

A

SCt recognized right to jury trial in regulatory taking case

44
Q

Abrams 2005

A

Remedies available to property owner if city violates the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Property owners can ask court to remedy violation and issue permit but can’t get money damages or attorney fees

45
Q

San Remo Hotel 2005

A

Which court should decide what and when?

State courts can adjudicate challenges to local land-use decisions

46
Q

Mount Laurel 1 1975

A
  • Housing
  • Equal protection
  • NJ SCt struck down an exclusionary zoning ordinance that prevented the construction of affordable housing for low- to moderate-income families
  • Court ordered individual jurisdictions to rewrite zoning laws to accommodate the need for providing a fair share of the affordable housing stock
47
Q

Palazzolo 2001

A
  • Investment-backed expectations
  • Takings Clause
  • Takings analysis not irrelevant simply because new owner acquired property after new regulations became effective
48
Q

City of Edmonds 1995

A
  • Occupancy restrictions
  • Federal Fair Housing
  • zoning restrictions on unrelated persons living together subject to act
49
Q

Midkiff 1984

A
  • Public use in eminent domain

- Hawaiian land reform legislation involved public use

50
Q

Welch 1909

A
  • Pre-zoning regulations

- Due process related to height restrictions/limitations

51
Q

Keystone Coal 1987

A
  • Restrictions on land use
  • Takings Clause
  • Government action to prevent serious harm
  • No taking where coal mining operations prohibited from causing subsidence damage to surface structures.
  • Use of whole parcel considered
52
Q

Stop the Beach Renourishment 2010

A
  • Takings Clause
  • Florida beach restoration legislation did not cause “taking” of beachfront property where state creates dry lands out of submerged lands and retains title to them
  • Upland owners have no right to possible future accretions and to maintain contact with the water
53
Q

Alameda Books 2002

A
  • Sexually-oriented businesses
  • First Amendment
  • Los Angeles prohibition against operation more than one SOB in the same building or structure was ok
  • Evidence that a concentration of the establishments would increase negative secondary effects could also apply to concentration of operations
54
Q

City of Erie 2000

A
  • Sexually-oriented businesses
  • First Amendment
  • Regulations requiring exotic dancers to wear minimal clothing is not a violation of freedom of expression
55
Q

City of Eastlake 1976

A
  • Zoning referendum
  • Due Process
  • no violation if zoning map may be amended by citizen referendum
56
Q

FCC v Florida Power Corporation 1987

A

Takings

57
Q

Munn 1877

A

Dealt with issue of public-private property/free enterprise v. state rights

58
Q

Kaiser Aetna 1979

A
  • government taking involving the development of a marina community, the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, and the decision that the government mislead the developer into thinking that the property would remain private
59
Q

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay 1976

A

Dealt with time phasing of development

60
Q

Austin 1938

A

Dealt with issue of nonconforming use that was built the day before the City’s zoning ordinance was put into place

61
Q

Pumpelly 1871

A

Dealt with takings

Dam for flood control flooded property - gov’t had to pay just compensation

62
Q

Nectow 1928

A
  • Zoning without valid public purpose

- Rational basis test

AICP (7 decks)

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