Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

AICP Prep > Land Use Cases > Flashcards

Land Use Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Mugler v Kansas, 1887

A

(Police Power/Due Process) 14th Amendment case in which the Court validated a Kansas law prohibiting sale of alcohol as valid use of police power.

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

Welch v Swasey, 1909

A

(Zoning) Boston can impose different height limits on bldgs in different districts.

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

Eubank v City of Richmond, 1912

A

(Zoning) A zoning establishing bldg setback lines based on request of adjoining property owners was held unconstitutional and not a valid use of the PP. It enabled the convenience of one set of property owners to control the property rights of others. It violates the due process of law and is therefore unconstitutional under 14th amendment

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

Hadacheck v Sebastian, 1915

A

(Zoning) 14th Amendment case where the SC upheld Los Angeles zoning ordinance that prohibited establishment of a brick kiln within a recently-annexed area. Due process and equal protection clause were not violated.

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

Pennsylvania Coal Co v Mahon, 1922

A

(Regulatory Takings) SC indicated for first time that a regulation of land use might be a taking if it goes too far

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

Village of Euclid v Ambler 1926

A

(Zoning) Established zoning as a legal use of PP by local government. Main issue was nuisance, and that a certain use near a residence could be considered a “pig in the parlor.” Argued by Alfred Bettman.

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

Nectow v City of Cambridge, 1928

A

(Zoning) Cambridge zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid pubic purpose: i.e., it did not promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the people of Cambridge

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

Berman v Parker, 1954

A

(Eminent Domain) Established aesthetics and redevelopment as valid public purposes for exercising eminent domain.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Jones v Mayer, 1968

A

(Equal protection) Ruling that discrimination in selling houses was not permitted based on the 13th amendment

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

Cheney v Village 2 at New Hope, 1968

A

(Zoning) Legitimized Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning

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

Golden v. Ramapo, 1972

A

Upheld growth control plan based on performance standards and availability of public services.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe, 1971

A

(Environmental) Established “hard look” doctrine for environmental impact review. Park use is ok only if no “feasible and prudent” alternative and “all possible planning to minimize harm.”

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

Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v Atomic Energy Commission, 1971

A

(Environmental) Made NEPA requirements judicially enforceable.

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

Sierra Club v Morton, 1971

A

(Environmental) Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies.

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

Just v Marienette County, 1972

A

(Zoning) Integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme. Shoreland ZO along navigable streams and other water bodies upheld.

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

Fasano v Board of Commissioners of Washington Co, Oregon, 1973

A

(Zoning) Required zoning to be consistent with comprehensive plans, and central issue was spot zoning.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

City of Belle Terre v Borraas, 1974

A

(Zoning/PP) Upheld the restrictive definition of a family as being no more than 2 unrelated people living together. Was a vlid exercise of the Village’s PP.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

South Burlinton County NAACP v Township of Mount Laurel I, 1975

A

(Zoning) Held that in developing municipalities in growing and expanding areas, provision must be made to accommodate a fair share of low and moderate income housing.

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

TVA v Hill, 1978

A

(Environmental) Court forced full implementation and enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. It halted the construction of the Tellico Dam due to presence of the endangered Snail Darter fish.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Agins v Tiburon, 1980

A

(Taking) Established 2 part test for regulatory takings: 1) deprives property of all economically viable use, 2) when it fails to substantially advance a legitimate gov interest. Court found that the Open Space ZO did not result in taking w/o just compensation.

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

Metromedia, Inc v San Diego, 1981

A

(Speech) Ordinance restricting onsite and offsite billboards was ruled unconstitutional under 1st Amendment.

22
Q

Loretto v Teleprompter Mahattan CATV Corporation, 1982

A

(Taking) Court held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimus.

23
Q

South Burlington County NAACP v Township of Mount Laurel II, 1983

A

(Zoning) This finding cured the deficiencies of Mt Laurel I, and created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning. Ruled that all municipalities must provide their fair share of low and moderate income housing.

24
Q

Members of City Council v Taxpayers of St Vincent, 1984

A

(Speech) 1st Amendment case that allowed the City Council to exert control over posting of election signs on public telephone poles.

25
Q

City of Cleburne v Cleburne Living Center, 1985

A

(Equal Protection) Ruled that the City had illegally denied group homes special use permits based on a neighbor’s unfounded fears.

26
Q

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v Hamilton Bank, 1985

A

(Taking) Defined the ripeness doctrine for judicial review of takings claims. A takings case is not “ripe” to be heard until there is a final determination of permitted use of the property. Relief must generally be sought in state court before federal court.

27
Q

City of Renton v Playtime Theaters, 1986

A

(Speech) 1st Amendment case. Court upheld the requirement of minimum distances between sexually-oriented businesses.

28
Q

First Evangelical Church of Glendale v County of Los Angeles, 1987

A

(Taking) Allowed damages as a remedy for regulatory taking. Applies just compensation clause of 5th Amendment to temporary takings.

29
Q

Nollan v California Coastal Commission, 1987

A

(Taking) Created the Rational Nexus test for conditioning development on dedications and exactions.

30
Q

Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992

A

(Taking) Defined categorical regulatory taking. Compensation must be paid when all economically viable beneficial uses of land are taken unless uses are disallowed by title or State law principles of nuisance.

31
Q

Dolan v City of Tigard, 1994

A

(Taking) Extended the rational nexus test to require Rough Proportionality between development impacts and conditions on development.

32
Q

City of Ladue v Gilleo, 1994

A

(Speech) Ruled that display of sign by a homeowners was protected by the 1st Amendment.

33
Q

Babbitt v Sweet Home Chap of Communities for a Great Oregon, 1995

A

(Environmental) Applied the ESA to land development. Validated Secretary of Interior’s definition of harm.

34
Q

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2002

A

(Taking) Sanctioned use of moratoria - Moratoria not a per se taking under 5th Amendment but should be analyzed under the multi-factor Penn Central test.

35
Q

Kelo v City of New London, 2005

A

(Taking) Ruled that economic development is a permissible “public use” under the takings clause of the 5th Amendment, because the economic development provided general benefits to the community.

36
Q

City of RPV v Abrams, 2005

A

(Taking) Ruled that licensed radio operator who was denied a CUP for a commercial antenna cannot seek monetary damages b/c it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

37
Q

Massachusetts v EPA, 2006

A

(Environmental) EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate greenhouse gases.

38
Q

Rapanos v U.S., 2006

A

(Environmental) The Army Corps of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus b/w a wetland and a navigable waterway under the Clean Water Act. This pulled back the ACOE’s jurisdiction regarding wetland.

39
Q

SD Warren v Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 2006

A

(Environmental) Confirmed that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

40
Q

Larkin v Grendel’s Den, 1982

A

Religion: struck down a Massachusetts law allowing a church within 500-feet of a liquor license applicant to veto/prevent the issuance. Court found it violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment (vested discretionary authority to church requesting denial of permit).

41
Q

Pumpelly v Green Bay Co, 1871

A

(Takings, Just Compensation) A state law required dam construction to prevent property damage from floods. The construction of a flood control dam flooded Pumpelly’s land. The U.S. Supreme Court found that state flood control program as applied had unconstitutionally taken Pumpelly’s land. Ordered the state to pay just compensation

42
Q

Penn Central Transportation Co v City of New York, 1978

A

(Taking) Court rejected a challenge to limitations imposed under the City’s Landmarks Preservation Law affecting development of the site, in part due to TDRs. This case imposed the “ad hoc factual inquiry.” This inquiry consists of (1) weighing the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, and especially on his investment backed expectations; (2) weighing the character of the regulation; and (3) determining whether or not the regulation sufficiently deprives one of property or rights.

43
Q

Village of Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Dev Corp, 1977

A

(Equal Protection) Dealt with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a neighborhood. The Court held that the ordinance was constitutional - an intent to discriminate was not found.

44
Q

Carla Hills v Dorothy Gautreaux, 1976

A

(Discriminatory Housing Policies) HUD and Chicago Housing Authority had deliberately selected public housing sites in Chicago to avoid placing African American families in white neighborhoods.

45
Q

Lingle v Chevron, 2005

A

(Takings) overturned some of Agins decision, by taking away “substantial advancement of state interests” test and rather focusing on severity of the burden on the property owner.

46
Q

Munn v Illinois, 1877

A

(Takings, Due Process) 14th Amendment case. SC found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking. Established principle of public regulation of private business in the public interest.

47
Q

Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn v DeBenedictis, 1987

A

(Taking) SCOTUS found that subsidence regulations against coal mining did not constitute a taking justified by the protection of public interest.

48
Q

San Jose Christian College v City of Morgan Hill, 2004

A

(RLUIPA) Land use regs hold power over religious institutions despite RLUIPA

49
Q

Hawaii Housing Authority v Midkiff, 1984

A

(Takings) Upholds eminent domain used to break up a small number of land owners seen as an oligopoly. Police power can be used to correct market failure.

50
Q

Young v American Minitheaters, 1972

A

(Due Process, Free Speech) Detroit ordinances requiring buffers of certain adult uses from other uses was upheld

51
Q

Associated Homebuilders v Livermore, 1976

A

(Police Power) Court upheld right of local gov to place temp moratoria on bldg permits in order to control growth

AICP Prep (9 decks)

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