Law Flashcards
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York
A NY zoning amendment purported to create a “Special Park District”, and rezoned two private parks in the Tudor City complex exclusively as parks open to the public. It further provided for the granting to the defendant property owners of transferable development (air) rights usable elsewhere. It created the transferable rights by severing the above-surface development rights from the surface development rights, a device of recent invention. In French v. City of New York the Court found that TDR is an inappropriate method to compensate the landowner for a taking by the City of New York.
Inverse Condemnation
Legal concept that entitles property owners to just compensation if their property is damaged by a public use.
Requirements for ordinances and regulations that impose conditions on issuance of development permits
-The condition must have some essential nexus with the public purpose it seeks to fulfill
-The condition must bear some rough proportionality to the impact of the development for which the permit is sought
-The condition may be satisfied by the payment of a fee in lieu of (FILO) compliance
-The condition must not result in the temporary loss of use of property while the application for the development permit is undergoing review by government staff.
Oregon’s Measure 37
Oregon’s Measure 37 requires that a land owner to be compensated if the land regulation results in a devaluation of the property if they are the owner at the time the regulation was put in place.
Prescriptive Easement
A prescriptive easement is typically obtained under principles of adverse possession. A prescriptive easement can be earned through the ongoing and regular use of a property. A prescriptive easement allows the right to use the property and does not allow the farmer to gain title to the land.
Easement Appurtenant
An easement appurtenant allows access to your property, for example giving you the right to use your neighbor’s driveway to access your property.
Norwood v. Horney
City wished to seize about seventy homes and businesses to make way for private development, including retail, offices, and condominiums. Homeowners Joe Horney, Carl and Joy Gamble, and Matthew and Sanae Burton, filed three separate cases to stop the seizure of their homes. Following appeals, these cases were combined into the Supreme Court case Norwood v. Horney.
In July 2006, the court found unanimously for the homeowners
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
In the 1960s, Citizens to Preserve Overton Park filed suit against US Secretary of Transportation John Volpe after he announced plans to build Interstate 40 through Overton Park in Memphis. The suit claimed that he was violating section 4(f) of the Dept. of Transportation Act of 1966, which required the government to show there were no “feasible and prudent” alternatives to using public lands, such as parks when building freeways. In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens to Preserve Overton Park. This led to a considerable increase in grassroots environmental organizing.
Police Power
Police Power is the power of a government to impose what it considers reasonable restrictions on the liberties of its citizens for the maintenance of public order and safety. In the case of a building permit this is ensuring the safety of citizens. Authorized by 10th Amendment.
Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope
The Court in 1968 found that planned unit developments are acceptable if the regulations focus on density requirements rather than specific rules for each lot.
Bove v Donner-Hanna Coke Corp
Owner not permitted to make an unreasonable use of premises to the material annoyance of a neighbor, if the latter’s enjoyment of life or property is materially lessened. Nuisance doctrine does not apply where plaintiff intentionally locates within a known industrial area, regardless of whether the particular source of the nuisance existed at the time the plaintiff located there.
Calvert Cliffs v. U.S. Atomic Enegry Commission 1971
Overturned approval of nuclear plant because the AEC did not follow NEPA; gave NEPA strength.
Cohen v. Des Plains (1990)
Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments; Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn’t.
Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997)
Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking.
Sierra Club v. Morton (1971)
The Mineral King Valley was an undeveloped part of the Sequoia National Forest that was mostly used for mining until the 1920s. In the late 1940s, developers began to make bids on the land for recreational developments. Walt Disney Enterprises won a bid to start surveying the valley in the hopes of developing an 80-acre ski resort. The size of the proposed resort would require the construction of a new highway and massive high voltage power lines that would run through the Sequoia National Forest. The Sierra Club kept track of this project for years and hoped to stop it to protect the undeveloped land. The Sierra Club filed preliminary and permanent injunctions against federal officials to prevent them from granting permits for the development of the Mineral King Valley. The district court granted these injunctions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunctions on the grounds that the Sierra Club did not show that it would be directly affected by the actions of the defendants and therefore did not have standing to sue under the Administrative Procedure Act. Alternatively, the appellate court also held that the Sierra Club had not made an adequate showing of irreparable injury or likelihood of their success on the merits of the case.
Q: Did the Sierra Club adequately establish that it had a sufficient stake in the development of the Mineral King Valley to establish standing for a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act?
A: The Sierra Club did not have standing to sue under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it failed to show that any of its members had suffered or would suffer injury as a result of the defendants’ actions.
