Fifth Amendment Cases Flashcards
Court rules acquisition of Gettysburg battlefield served a valid public purpose.
First significant legal case dealing with historic preservation
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; U.S. Supreme Court (1896)
Court found that if a regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking.
First takings ruling and defined a taking under the fifth amendment.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (1922)
Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose.
Court found that urban renwal is a valid public purpose.
Dept. store sued when Washington, D.C. tried to use eminent domain to beautify a blighted area in 1940s.
Upheld redevelopment program that allowed taking of land (eminent domain) and transfering for private development.
Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954)
Court invalidated regualtion requiring installation of a public park on private property (eliminated income producing area). Court invalidated but did not rule it a taking that should receive compensation.
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York; New York Court of Appeals (1976)
Court found that NYC Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking.
Court found a taking is based on the extent of the diminuation of value, interference with investement-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.
Preservation Law (1965) desingating landmarks did not prevent future construction, just prevented future construction that did not enhance the terminal.
Court weighed the conomic impact of the regulation on investment-backed expectations and the character of the regulation to determine whether the reuglation deprives on of property rights.
Historic preservation fulfills valid public interest.
Sparked preservation movement and transfer of development rights process.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. the City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978)
Court held that city’s zoning designation (one residence per acre) was not a taking of the owner’s five acres (recently purchased).
Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density adn detemrined if furthered a legitimate government interest.
Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980)
Court found the governmennt authorizing a permanent physical occupation of private proeprty constituted a taking and requires just compensation.
Loretto v. Telepromter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982)
Court found that if a property is unusable for a period of time, then not only can the ordinance be set aside, but the property owner can sue the government for damages.
Court found LA county could either purchase the property out-right or revoke the ordinance (no reconstruction on land previously devasted by a flood within previous year) and pay the church for its losses during the time of the trial.
First English Evangelical Luthern Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (1987).
Court found requirement to leave 50% of underground coal in place (to support public structures, dwellings, and cemetaries) was not a taking.
Mines retained right to rest of “mineral estate” and found leaving a “support estate” to support hte above-ground “surface estate” furthered a legitimate public interest - not a taking as public interests were protected.
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
Court found that no taking ocurred when FCC issued federal statute that regulated rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles.
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
Court found that a legitimate interest is served by maintaining a “continious strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast” but that California must provide just compensation to beachfront property owners for the public use of land.
CA Coastal Comm. had required coastal buliding permit seekers maintian and provide beach access.
State said Nollan’s house would interfere with visual and pshychological public beach access. Permit only with public access. Court says taking.
Court says - If State really wants beach access, state must use ED and compensate land owners.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
Court found a taking if there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left) after the regulation is in place (except where dereived from the state’s law of property and nuisance).
Court found that Lucas’ inability to build on his Isle of Palms lots (permanently habitable structures) constiuted a taking. Lucas had bought lots before state regulation put into place.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992)
Court overtuned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain (to create a greenway and bicycle path) by a commerical business that wanted to expand.
Court found there was not enough of a connection (rational nexus) between exaction requirement and development.
Must be a clear relationship between government requirement to deed property and the nature of the proposed development.
Lead to “rough proportionality” test. An exactment is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly propostional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use.
Gov. can require proerty to be deeded as a permit condition.
Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994)
Court ruled applicant did not have to attempt to sell his developmental rights before claiming a regualtory taking.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court held up a jury finding that City of Monterey’s repeated denials of a proposed development did not advance the public interest and the proposed devleopment satisfied both the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.
Repeated denials of a permit deprive an owner of all economically viable use of land.
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; U.S. Supreme Court (1999)