Law

Question 1

Agins v. City of Tiburon; US Supreme Court (1980)

Answer 1

5th Amendment Case

The Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined this zoning was not a taking. The appellants had acquired five acres of unimproved land for residential development. The City adopted zoning ordinances that placed appellants’ property in a zone where property may be devoted to one-family dwellings, with density restrictions permitting appellants to build between one and five single-family residences on their tract. Without having sought approval for development of their tract under the ordinances, appellants brought suit against the city in state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional.

Question 2

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976)

Answer 2

The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.

Question 3

Berman v. Parker; US Supreme Court (1954)

Answer 3

The court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The court found that urban renewal was a valid public purpose.

Question 4

City of Boerne v. Flores Supreme Court (1997)

Answer 4

This case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The City of Boerne, Texas prohibited a church in a historic district from enlarging. The Supreme Court ruled that the act is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforcement powers of the fourteenth amendment. In the end the city and church came to an agreement to leave 80 percent of the church intact and allow a new 750-seat auditorium on the rear of the auditorium.

Question 5

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; US Supreme Court (1999)

Answer 5

The Supreme Court upheld a jury award of $1.45 million in favor of the development-based on the city’s repeated denials of a development permit for a 190-unit residential complex on ocean front property. The development was in conformance with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.

Question 6

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; US Supreme Court (2005)

Answer 6

The Supreme Court ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied conditional use permit for an antenna cannot seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Question 7

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc. US Supreme Court (1986)

Answer 7

1st Amendment Case: Adult Entertainment
The Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic and crime) not the content. The Court found that the city does not have to guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. However, the city cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment. The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district.

Question 8

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975)

Answer 8

The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.

Question 9

Dolan v. Tigard; US Supreme Court (1994)

Answer 9

Rough Proportionality Test: Rough proportionality means that the amount of the exaction
must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government,
resulting from the proposed development.

The Court found there must be a rational nexus between the exaction requirement and the development. The rough proportionality test was created from this case “an exaction is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use.”. The court found that conditions that require the deeding of portions of a property to the government can be justified where there is a relationship between the nature and extent of the proposed development. The court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of the floodplain by a commercial business that wanted to expand.

Question 10

Eubank v. City of Richmond US Supreme Court (1912)

Answer 10

The Court first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case.

The state had a statute authorizing cities and towns to establish building lines. The ordinance allowed the owners of two-thirds of the land abutting any street to request a building line. The court struck down the ordinance because they were against the delegation of this authority to private citizens. However, the Court acknowledged that the establishment of building lines was a valid exercise of the police power.

Question 11

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; US Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 11

The 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 subject the government to pay for damages. The court found that the County could either purchase the property out-right or revoke the ordinance and pay the church for its losses during the time of the trial.

Question 12

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972)

Answer 12

Growth Management Case

Upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. A proposal would only be approved upon reaching a certain point level. Developers could increase their point total by providing the involved facilities themselves.

Question 13

Hadacheck v. Sebastian US Supreme Court (1915)

Answer 13

Zoning Case

The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses. The court found that a zoning ordinance in Los Angeles that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Question 14

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis; US Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 14

5th Amendment Case
The Court found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking. The Court found that the enactment of the Act was justified by the public interests protected by the Act. Pennsylvania’s Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act prohibits coal mining that causes subsidence damage to pre-existing public buildings, dwellings, and cemeteries. The Act requires that 50 percent of the coal beneath four protected structures be kept in place to provide surface support. The Coal Association alleged that this constituted a taking. The Court found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act.

Question 15

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc; US Supreme Court (2005)

Answer 15

5th Amendment Case

The Supreme Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent declaring that regulation of property effects a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. The court found this prong of the formula imprecise and not appropriate for determining if a taking has occurred. The other prong of the formula under Agins related to denial of economically viable use is unaffected.
The Court found that Takings clause challenges had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furthering the governmental interest.

Question 16

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; US Supreme Court (1992)

Answer 16

5th Amendment Case
The Court found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left) after the regulation is in place, except where derived from the states law of property and nuisance. The court found that Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place and so constituted a taking.

Question 17

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent US Supreme Court (1984)

Answer 17

The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance does not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The Court found that aesthetics advance a legitimate state interest. The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles.

Question 18

Metromedia, Inc v. City of San Diego US Supreme Court (1981)

Answer 18

1st Amendment Case
The Court found that commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned non-commercial signs.

Question 19

Munn v. Illinois; Supreme Court (1876)

Answer 19

14th Amendment Case
The Court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking. The Court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest. The Court found that the regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good.

Question 20

Mugler v. Kansas; US Supreme Court (1887)

Answer 20

14th Amendment Case
The Court found that a state law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. “A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking.”

Question 21

Nectow v. City of Cambridge; US Supreme Court (1928)

Answer 21

Zoning Case

The Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose (e.g. to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public). The Court ruled that it was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Question 22

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; US Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 22

5th Amendment Case
Rational Nexus - connection
The Court found that regulations must serve a substantial public purpose and that exactions are valid as long as the exaction and the project are reasonably related. The court also found that the California Coastal Commissions requirement to dedicate an easement for public beach access was not reasonable.

The question before the Court was whether the California Coastal Commission’s requirement that owners of beachfront property seeking a building permit need to maintain beachfront access constitutes a property taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court agreed that a legitimate interest is served by maintaining a “continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast,” but that California must provide just compensation to beachfront property owners for the public use of their land.

Question 23

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; US Supreme Court (1978)

Answer 23

5th Amendment Case
The court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment backed expectations, and the character of the government action. The court weighed the economic impact of the regulation on investment backed expectations and the character of the regulation to determine whether the regulation deprives one of property rights. The court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking.

Question 24

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; US Supreme Court (1922)

Answer 24

5th Amendment Case
The court found if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. This was the first takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th Amendment.

Question 25

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

Answer 25

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The new act declares that no government may implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of burden both is in furtherance of compelling government interest and is at least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. This act was challenged in Cutter v. Wilkinson, US Supreme Court (2005). The Court ruled that the Act is a constitutional religious accommodation under the First Amendments Establishment Clause.

Question 26

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975)

Answer 26

14th Amendment Case
The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibits multifamily, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing. The court required the Town to open its doors to those of all income levels

Question 27

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; US Supreme Court (1997)

Answer 27

5th Amendment Case

The Court found that Suitum’s taking claim was ripe for adjudication because the agency made the determination that the property could not be developed. The petitioner owned an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency found that the lot could not be developed under the agencies regulations, but that Suitum could sell the development rights under the Transfer of Development Rights program. Suitum sued claiming a taking requiring compensation.

The Court, in this case, was answering the question of whether an owner must attempt to sell their development rights before claiming a regulatory taking of property without just compensation. The petitioner owned an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe, and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency found that the lot could not be developed under the agencies’ regulations, but that Suitum could sell the development rights under the Transfer of Development Rights program. The Court ruled that Suitum did not have to attempt to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking suit.

Question 28

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; US Supreme Court (2002)

Answer 28

5th Amendment Case
The Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed two moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comprehensive plan for the area. A group of property owners sued, claiming a taking.

Question 29

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; US Supreme Court (1896)

Answer 29

5th Amendment Case
The Court ruled that the acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose. This was the first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation.

Question 30

Welch v. Swasey, 214 US 91 (1909)

Answer 30

Zoning Case
The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height. An act in 1905 in Massachusetts enabled the limitation of building heights and the court held that height discrimination is based on reasonable grounds, is a proper exercise of the police power of the state, and does not violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Question 31

Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc; US Supreme Court (1976)

Answer 31

1st Amendment Case
The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.

Question 32

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court (1984)

Answer 32

1st Amendment Case
The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles. The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The Court found that aesthetics does advance a legitimate state interest.