Law

Question 1

Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp, 1932

Answer 1

Nuisance doesn’t apply when one intentionally locates to a known industrial area, even if the source of nuisance didn’t exist when they moved there.

Question 2

Calvert Cliffs v. US Atomic Energy Commission, 1971

Answer 2

First important court interpretation of NEPA. Environmental impacts of licensing a nuclear power plant. The atomic Energy Commissions rules were deficient under NEPA and required revision.

Question 3

Cohen v. Des Plains, 1990

Answer 3

Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments. Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn’t.

Question 4

NAACP v. Mt. Laurel 1, 1972

Answer 4

Held that in New Jersey communities in growing areas in the way of urban expansion must take their fair share of the regions growth.

Question 5

NAACP v. Mt. Laurel 2, 1983

Answer 5

A municipality must, by land use regulations, make possible an appropriate variety and choice of housing. It cannot make it physically and economically impossible to provide low and moderate income housing for those who need it. Affirmative measures should be used to ensure a fair share goal is reached.

Question 6

Kavanau v. Santa Monica rent control board, 1997

Answer 6

Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking.

Question 7

Pennsylvania Coal v Mahon, 1922

Answer 7

Restrictions on use are not a taking provided they do not go too far.

Question 8

Nectow v city of Cambridge 1928

Answer 8

Rational basis test. Ordinance struck down because it had no valid public purpose.

Question 9

Agnis v city of Tiburon

Answer 9

Two prong test- (shark teeth)- it’s a taking if 1: does not substantially forward state interest and 2: denies owner an economically viable use of their land.