Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

State and Local Government Law > Final Exam > Flashcards

Final Exam Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
U.S. Government Basics flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards AP® U.S. Government flashcards MPRE flashcards American Government 101 flashcards
1
Q

Two Kinds of Local Government (Purpose)

3 Features of One Govt

A

General Purpose

Special Purpose (Most Common+Service Focused)

  1. Independence from General Purpose Govt
  2. Avoids Constitutional Restrictions on Cities
  3. Limits Largess/Expense of General Govts
  4. Removed from Politics (Independent/Immune)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Three Types Of Local Governments (Organization)

A
  1. Top-Town: County
  2. Bottom-Up: City/Municipality
  3. Combined: Town/Township
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

On Government: James Madison

A

Remove Factions by Controlling Its Effects & Bigger Is Better

  • More Qualified People in Leadership
  • Less Likely to Succumb to Tyranny
  • Prevent Majorities (Important)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

On Government: Alexis De Tocqueville

Philosophy & Two Functions

A

Local Is Better

  • Centralization is a force for Status Quo
  • Political Advantages are Weakened by Centralization
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

On Government: Charles Tiebout

A
  • Consumer-Voter Paradigm

* People Vote by Moving

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

Gangemi v. Berry (1957)

Absentee Ballot Case

A
  • States are governments of Limitation, not Grants
  • Since State constitution, which provided absentee ballots to soldiers, did not LIMIT it to them, thus it COULD BE (and was) extended to others.

*The case would have been different if it was the federal government.

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

Governments of Limitation vs. Grants

A

State Government: Limitation
-State has all powers not expressly limited (by constitutions or the like)
Federal Government: Grant
-Republic has only the powers expressly conferred upon it

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

State Constitutions: Additional Features (6)

Mnemonic DEPLIT

A

DEPLIT

  • Direct Democracy
  • Elected Judiciary
  • Plural Executive (Multi-Leadership)
  • Legislative Procedures (Single-Subject Bills, Ban on Special Legislation, etc.)
  • Item Veto
  • Term Limits
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Dillon’s Rule v. Cooley’s Rule

Origin and Meaning

A

Dillon’s Rule (Hunter v. City of Pittsburg)
-State Is Supreme/No Inherent Local Power

Cooley’s Rule (Hurlbut Case): Home Rule Doctrine
-State’s Have (Some) Inherent Authority

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

Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960)

Facts, Majority, Concurrance

A

Facts: Redistricting/Gerrymandering on racial basis.
Majority: Unconstitutional, 15th Amendment (Right to Vote)
Concurrence: 14th Amendment (Equal Protection), because blacks still had ability to “vote” (it was just marginalized).

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

Monell v. New York City Police (1978)

Holding and Two Effects

A

Expanded standing to include wrongs suffered by local governments.

  • Local Government = State Action in Federal Court
  • Sovereign Immunity Back Door
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Voting Issues

3 Notes

A
  • Everyone is entitled to vote, whether or not a property owner, inside a municipality
  • Extra-territorality does not implicate Equal Protection (i.e., no right to vote on spill over effects) (Holt Civic Club)
    • State may impose additional limitations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Milliken v. Bradley (1974)

Fact, Holding, Majority, Dissent

A

Scope of the Remedy Must be Proportional to the Harm

  • Desegregation (by bussing, here) included a municipality that did not act in the harm
  • Remedy must be confined to city (unless others did participate).

Dissent (White+3) held that school board was an arm of the state, thus instradistict bussing was acceptable

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

Two Duties Owed to Non-Residents

A
  • Reasonable Taxation (Not Unfair) (City of Pittsburg)

- No Duty to Provide Services (without Contract) (Bakies v. City of Perrysburg)

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

Two Types of Home Rule

Power & Functions

A

Initiative Power:

  • Ability to Legislate on Municipal Matters
  • Cannot Exceed/Contradict State Law/Enabling Statute

Imperial/Immunity Power:
-Protects Muni from later overruling by state

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

Prohibitions on Special Commissions

Purpose, Example, Three-Part Test

A

Prevents States from Overriding Local Elections

  • AKA Ripper Laws
  • Detroit’s Water Commissioner Case

If Special Commission = Impermissible

  1. Municipal Function (Yes)
  2. Self-Discription (Not Dispositive)
  3. Subject to Local Control/Oversight (No)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

State and Local Relations

Three Common Bans

A
  • Special Legislation (Trade School Exemption)
  • Special Commissions (Regional EMT)
  • Unfunded Mandates (Workers Comp (Overturned))
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Ban on Special Legislation

Definition, Test, Two Example

A

Laws that arbitrarily separate persons, places, or things from others.

Test: Appropriateness of law’s provisions to objects it excludes.

Examples:
-Rejected: Trade-school Exception (Rejected)
-Upheld: Traffic Limitation since State could protect coastal region & General to the “problem”
Upheld: City Requirements for Casino in Michigan since General Law (similar in form to Tradeschool)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q 
Headlee Amendment (Michigan)
Three Effects
A
  1. Limits Overall State Spending
  2. State Must Reimburse Munis for Mandates
  3. Cannot Reduce State Funding Below 1979 Levels
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Unfunded Mandate

A

Ban does not apply to laws of general applicability (Worker’s Comp)

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

Home Rule Power: 3 Applicability Factors

Two Examples

A
  • Nature/Extent of Problem
  • Units of Government which have most Vital Interest in Solution
  • Traditional Role played by authorities dealing with issue

Upheld Examples:

  • Handgun Ban
  • Defining “Dependents”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Constitutionality of Home-Rule Regulations: 2 Part Test

-Prohibited Regulation

A
  1. Civil Law (Affecting Private Relationships)?
  2. If Yes, Is It Incidental?
    - Yes = Constitutional
    - No = Unconstitutional

-NO PRIVATE LAWS

23
Q

Bankruptcy Considerations

  • Eligibility: 5 Conditions for Bankruptcy
  • 3 Problems in Municipal Bankruptcy
A
  1. Municipality
  2. Authorization: Statutory Authority
  3. Insolvency (Any of Three Kinds)
  4. Volition: Municipality Seeks to Reconcile Debt
  5. Agreement or Good Faith Negotiation or Impracticable Negotiation

Problems:

  • Constitutional (Art. 1, Sec. 10): No state shall pass any law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.
  • State Sovereignty: Independence from Union
  • Spillover Impact on Region (Home Rule Downside)
24
Q

Pre-Emption Test: 4 Factors & Escape Route

4 Pro-Muni Cases & 1 Pro-State Case

A

Factors:

  • Uniformity of Law
  • Extraterritorial Impact
  • State Interest
  • Asserted Local Interest

+Escape: State law may allow more or less restrictive law.

Pro-Muni:

  • City Excluding Deputies from Training
  • Campaign Finance Reform (Locality had strong Home Rule powers and State’s law was irrational)
  • Forced Arbitration in Union Dispute for State Employees (Excessive without Good Justification)

Pro-State:
-Retirement System (General Law of State Prevailed)

25
Q

Miler v. Fabius (Michigan Water Ski Case)

Holding & Principle

A

No Conflict: Municipality May Pass a More Restrictive Law (Limited Water Skiing Hours)

26
Q

Gregory v. Ashcroft (Age Cap on Judges)

Fact & Holding

A

No Preemption

  • Judges are not included in the “appointed” officials unless specifically stipulated.
  • Avoids Pre-Emption Issue
27
Q

Lorillard Tobacco Co v. Reilly (2001)

Fact & Holding

A

Preemption

-Congress preempted the entire field of tobacco regulation, leaving nothing to the states.

28
Q

Conflicts Between Localities

6 Possible Tests

A
  1. Eminent Domain Test
  2. Superior Soverign Test
  3. Governmental Function Test
  4. Preemption Power Test
  5. Legislative Intent Test
  6. Balancing Test
29
Q

Mount Laurel I & II

A
  1. Cannot disregard people outside boards of municipality.

2. Established affirmative obligations for municipal officials in exercise of zoning power

30
Q

Intergovernmental Agreement:

Two Positions on Exercise of Power

A
  1. Any Power that either Muni Possesses

2. Any Power that both Muni Possesses

31
Q

Public Purpose Requirement: Two Part Test

Two Upheld & One Rejected Case

A
  • Reasonable Connection to Convenience or Necessity of Municipality
  • Activity Benefits Greater Public Generally (Not Special Interest)

Examples:

  • Upheld: Economic Incentives (GM Auto Plant, Business Beautification)
  • Rejected: Personal Benefits
32
Q

Three Types of Valuation

A
  1. Market Approach
  2. Income Approach
  3. Reconstruction/Rebuild Cost
33
Q

Ross v. Consumers Power

General Rule/Exception, Specific Test, 2 Cases

A

Sovereign Immunity applies for Governmental Functions (i.e., Authorized by Law), UNLESS:

  • Proprietary
  • Exception

Officer (& Governmental?) Immunity Test:
A. Acting in Course of Employment
B. Good Faith
C. Discretionary-Decisional Acts (NOT Ministerial-Operational Acts)

  1. Willis v. Dept. of Social Services
    - Child drowned under supervision of employees.
    - Court found Sovereign Immunity for State & Agency, but it suggested that the Employees were liable because it was a Ministerial-Operational Act.
  2. Siener v. Dept of Mental Health
    - While a patient, plaintiff was assaulted by another patient during a field trip.
    - Court found immunity. State waived immunity only for employee-inflicted injury, not from other patients.
34
Q

Lauer v. NYC

Principle, Facts, Holding, Dissent & Dissent’s 4-Part Test

A

State Protected under Tort Immunity - No Special Duty

  • Father accused of murdering child after initial autopsy. Further autopsy found contrary, but police were not informed. Father ostracized and divorced (emotional harm).
  • Court found State only owed a Public Duty. No Individual/Special Duty, thus Immunity.

Dissent found Special Duty. Factors:

  1. Assumption by Municipality to Act on Behalf of Party (State took in body, thus had to act reasonably)
  2. Knowledge of Potential Harm (Homicide = Investigation was known to State)
  3. Direct Contact between Muni’s Agents & Individual (Father often interacted with department)
  4. Justified Reliance (Father HAD to comply)
35
Q

Limitations on Governmental Spending

A
  1. Must be for a Public Purpose
  2. Cannot Guarantee Credit (May Lend)
  3. Cannot Subscribe to Stock
36
Q

42 USC 1983

A

Federal Backdoor for Governmental Liability

  • Every Person
  • Under Color of Law (of any State)
  • Affecting Any Citizen
37
Q

Non-Taxes

3 Examples

A
  1. Special Assessments
  2. Special Benefits Fees
  3. Developer Fees
38
Q

Special Assessments

One Note & Two Requirements

A

Presumptively Valid

  1. Cannot Exceed Market Value of Improvement
  2. Reflects a Benefit to a Particular Group/Property, which Demonstrably enhances the Use/Value of It
39
Q

User Fee or Tax: Factors

A
  1. User Fee Must Serve a Regulatory Purpose (Not Fund Raising)
  2. Fees Must be Proportionate to the Necessary Costs of Service
    (3. Voluntariness of Assessment suggests Fee, rather than a Tax)
40
Q

Development Fees v. Special Assessment

Two Part Test

A

Double Nexus:
1. Exaction Imposed on Developer must be Factually Related to the Need for Public Services created by development

  1. Nature/Extent of Exaction must bear a Reasonable Relationship to that portion of the burden created (now or in foreseeable future)
    - Direct Immediate Benefit is not necessary.
41
Q

Dolan v. City of Tigard

Bike Path/Parking Lot Case

A

Facts: City required placing a bike path on land when trying to get approval for building a parking lot.

Holding: Unconstitutional Pre-Condition (Path)

Test (Otherwise Exactions = Taking)

  1. Essential Nexus between Permit Conditions and Legitimate Interest
  2. Whether Exactions bear Rough Proportionality to Projected Impact of Proposed Development
42
Q

Three Kinds of Insolvency

In Re City of Stockton, California

A
  1. Cash
  2. Budget
  3. Service Delivery
43
Q

Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n

A

Facts: State felt new house would obstruct ocean view, so they required an Exaction for walking path.

Holding: Lack of Nexus.

Reasoning: Physical Access is different from Visual Access

44
Q

3 State Immunity Types

A
  1. Sovereign Immunity (State)
  2. Governmental Immunity (Divisions)
  3. Officer Immunity
45
Q

Public Duty v. Special Duty (4-Part Test)

Two Representative Cases

A

Public Duty: Owed Generally to Society = Immunity
Special Duty & Factors: Owed to Individual = No Immunity
-Actual Knowledge of Dangerous Condition
-Reasonable Reliance
-Mandatory Action Required
-Increasing the Risk of Harm (Negligently)

+Gleason: Cops discover underage drinking, but leave; kid is assaulted later. Immunity.

+Lauer: Dead child; father suspected of murder, but new evidence never released. Immunity

  • Dissent held that there WAS a Special Duty that arose after state assumed responsibility for handling the child.
  • All aspects of test met: Knowledge, Mandate, Connection+Reliance, Negligence. Connection wasn’t formal, but it was sufficient.
46
Q

Police Powers: Definition & Scrutiny

4 Upheld Cases & 2 Rejected Cases

A

Legislate to Promote General Health, Safety, Welfare (and Morals) of the Community

UPHELD:
1. Juvenile Curfews (with Exceptions) = Intermediate Scrutiny (due to significant restriction of liberties). Interests concerned 1) Reduce Violence, 2) Protect Minors, 3) Increase Parental Responsibility. Tailored and Sufficent Exceptions.

  1. Privatize Streets (SCOTUS). Policy (and conveyance, implicitly) was not over broad because it did not Substantially Limit Protected Speech.
  2. City’s Refusal to Maintain Sewer System. No Affirmative Duty to provide service.
  3. Not Arbitrary/Capricious: Pre-Construction Sewage Permits (Reasonable [to] Finances Construction). Town had sufficient (repurchase) control.

REJECTED:
1. Vague: Gang Congregation (Loitering). O’Connor would allow Loitering with a Harmful Purpose to stand. Or, if Loiter was more specifically defined (remaining in area to Control, Intimidate, or Conceal illegal activities).

  1. Drug Exclusion Ordinance: Fails Strict Scrutiny because Liberty Interests at stake. Not Narrowly Tailored - a Less Restrictive Alternative should have been CONSIDERED.
47
Q

Interlocal Relations: Education Funding

Two Cases: Facts & Holding

A

DuPree: Method Challenged under State’s Equal Protection - Constant 50% from State/10% from Federal & Variable Remaining 40% from Locality
-Violation of State Constitution. State can control distribution of funds and needs to consider local funding ability.

Edgar: Similar, Local Property Taxing Capacity Weaker for Poor (vs. Rich) Communities.

  • The “Efficient” System was satisfied.
  • Court invoked Political Question Doctrine
48
Q

Property Valuation Methods

A

Costs under Actual or Common Use (Highest and Best Use = Uncommon)

  1. Cost Approach (Bespoke Produced and Sold)
  2. Market Data (Relative Cost/Price)
  3. Income Approach (Business Properties)
49
Q

Property Valuation Cases
-Upheld Case: Facts & 2 Part Holding/Rationale
-Rejected Case: Facts & 2 Holdings
+Qualification for Exemption Test: 3 Categories

A
  • Upheld: Tax Increase Cap (Prop. 13 in California). State had rational basis in 1) Neighborhood Preservation and 2) Reliance Factor.
  • Rejected: Tax Shifting (State’s Constitution requires Uniform Taxation). Referendum was not a valid Tax. Didn’t Qualify as an Exemption.
  1. Characteristic of Property Owner (Poor/Elderly)
  2. Kind of Property (Home, Farm)*
  3. Use (Business, Religious)*
50
Q

Two Kinds of Bonds

A
  1. Revenue Bonds

2. General Obligation Bonds

51
Q

Federalism: 4 Cases Pro-Federal

A
  1. Gonzales: Federal drug law superseded State Constitution (State could not compel Feds from enforcing their law).
  2. Hibbs: Fam. Med. Leave Act (FMLA) as applied against State-Employer. Court found gender discrimination a reasonable justification; States have histories of discrimination.
  3. Dole: Conditional Road Funds (Drinking Age). Met Conditional Funding Factors:
    1) For General Welfare
    2) Unambiguous Condition
    3) Reasonable Connection between Condition and Program. May Not be Coercive (Pressure into Compulsion)
  4. Garcia: Federal Labor Standards extended to State Employees. Unduly burdensome laws have a proper remedy is through the Political Process, not the Courts.
52
Q

Federalism: 2 Cases Pro-State

A
  1. Flores: Church Permit Case under RFRA. RFRA was not reasonable under the circumstances (didn’t address a specific problem).
  2. Garcia Dissent (O’Connor): Fair Labor Act cannot infringe on State’s rights under 10th Amendment.
53
Q

Limitation on Congressional Funding Conditions

Case & Three Part Test + Rule

A

Dole: Conditional Road Funds (Drinking Age) upheld. Met Test and wasn’t coercive (5%).

Factors:

1) For General Welfare
2) Unambiguous Condition
3) Reasonable Connection between Condition and Program.

Rule: Non-Coercive (Point at which Pressure turns into Compulsion)

State and Local Government Law (1 decks)

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