Law

Question 1

What are the primary areas of constitutional principle for the First Amendment, Fifth amendment, and 14th Amendment?

Answer 1

First amendment, Freedom of speech. Fifth Amendment, just compensation. 14th amendment, due process.

Question 2

Which court case recognized that cities must allow for adult theaters to exist as regulated uses?

Answer 2

Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. Ruled in favor of distance-based criteria which regulated adult movie theaters in Detroit.

Question 3

Which case found that commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently? In this case, the court overruled an ordinance that barred all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercials signs.

Answer 3

Metromedia, Inc. versus City of San Diego (1981). Found that a ban on most outdoor advertising displays was unconstitutional as it hindered the First Amendment rights of local businesses.

Question 4

Which court case was found to be unconstitutional because the regulation of signs had not justified based on its asserted interests of preventing visual clutter, minimizing traffic hazards, and preventing interference with in the use of public property?

Answer 4

City Council versus Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)

Question 5

Welsh v. Swasey (1909)

Answer 5

The Court established the right to regulate building height. And act in 1905 in Massachusetts enabled limitation of building Heights in the Court held that height discrimination is based on reasonable grounds, is proper exercise of the police power of State, and does not violate the equal protection and due process Clauses of the 14th amendment.

Question 6

Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912)

Answer 6

authorized cities and towns to establish building lines (setbacks). The ordinance allowed the owners of the land of building to request a building line. Court struck down the ordinance because they were against the delegation of this authority to private citizens. However, the court acknowledged that establishing building lines as a valid exercise and police power.

Question 7

Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)

Answer 7

The court first approved regulation of local land uses. Court found that a zoning ordinance in Los Angeles prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the due process and equal protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Question 8

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926)

Answer 8

The court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. The key question before the court was whether the village of euclids and zoning ordinance of violated the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th amendment in the Constitution. The key outcome was that it upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with court

Question 9

Netcow v. City of Cambridge (1928)

Answer 9

Zoning related laws must have a valid public purpose. 2 years after Euclid versus ambler, the court used to rational basis test to strike down this zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose (e.g. promote public health safety, health, or welfare of the public). The Court ruled that this was a violation of due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Question 10

Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo (1972)

Answer 10

The court upheld the 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 total by providing the facilities themselves.

Question 11

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma 1975)

Answer 11

The court upheld quotas of the annual number of building permits issued.

Question 12

Associated Home Builders if Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore

Answer 12

The court upheld a temporary moratorium on building permits.

Question 13

Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States

Answer 13

The court found that the 1875 General railroad right-of-way act grants and easement for the railroad land. When the railroad company abandons the land, it should be settled as an easement and if the easement is abandoned, the easement disappears the land refers to the previous owner.

Question 14

Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc. (2006)

Answer 14

The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would want to not regulate greenhouse gases.

Question 15

Rapanos v. United States (2006)

Answer 15

The court found that the Army Corps of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.

Question 16

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection

Answer 16

The court found that hydroelectric dam subject to section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Question 17

Texas Dept. Of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (2015)

Answer 17

The court evaluated whether disparate impact is the appropriate standard in which to evaluate the impact of Fair Housing Act. The inclusive housing project claimed that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs was disproportionately granting tax credits to developments in minority neighborhoods and denying credits to development within Caucasian neighborhoods. The Court held that disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the fair housing act. The result is that policies that even inadvertently regulate minorities to poor areas violate the Fair Housing Act.

Question 18

What is the religious land use in institutionalized persons Act of 2000?

Answer 18

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne versus Flores, Congress passed this act. The act declares that no government may implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution unless the government demonstrates that the imposition of burden both is in furtherance of compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Question 19

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)

Answer 19

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 20

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)

Answer 20

The court found that if a regulation goes too far it will be considered as a taking. This was the first taking’s ruling and to find a taking under the fifth amendment.

Question 21

Berman v. Parker (1954)

Answer 21

The Court held that Aesthetics is a valid public purpose. Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.

Question 22

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978)

Answer 22

The court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law (1965) as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking.

The court for held that restrictions imposed did not prevent Penn Central from ever constructing above the terminal in the future. New York’s objection was to the nature of the proposed construction and not the construction in general. Preventing the construction of a 50-plus story addition above the station was reasonable restriction substantially related to the general welfare of the city.

Question 23

Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980)

Answer 23

The appellant had acquired 5 acres of unimproved land for residential development. Zoning ordinance placed the appellant’s property in a zone with density restrictions, allowing one single-family residence per acre. The appellants brought suit against the city and state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation and violation of the fifth and 14th amendments, and seeking a declaration that the zoning ordinances were unconstitutional. The court upheld the city’s right to zone property at low density and determined that the zoning was not a taking.

Later overturned in part by Lingle v. Chevron (2005)

Question 24

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictus (1987)

Answer 24

Pennsylvania’s Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Lands Conservation Act prohibits coal mining that causes subside and damage to pre-existing buildings, dwellings, and cemeteries The Act requires that 50% of the coal beneath four protected structures be kept in place to protect surface support. The Coal Association alleged that this constituted a taking. The court found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute taking and was justified by the public interest protected by the act.

Question 25

Nolan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

Answer 25

Regarding whether it taking had occurred. The question before the court was whether the California Coastal commissions requirement that owners of a beachfront property seeking a building permit need to maintain it beachfront access constitutes a taking in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments. The court agreed that a legitimate interest is served by maintaining a continuous strip of publicly accessible Beach along the coast but the California must provide just compensation to beachfront property owners for the public use of their land.

Question 26

Dolan v. Tigard (1994)

Answer 26

Regarding takings. The court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain to create a Greenway and bicycle path by a commercial business that wanted to expand. The court found that there was not enough of a connection between the exaction requirement and the proposed development. Conditions that require the deeding of portions of a property to the government can be justified, but there has to be a clear relationship between the nature and extent of the proposed 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.

Question 27

Lingle v. Chevron (2005)

Answer 27

The court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent declaring that regulation of property does affect a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate State interests.

The court found that the takings clause challenges had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation and furthering the governmental interest.

Question 28

City of Palos Verdes v. Abrams

Answer 28

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

Question 29

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Answer 29

The Court ruled the economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain. The court reasoned that it is not in a position to determine the amount or character of land needed for a particular public project.

Question 30

Stop Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)

Answer 30

The Supreme Court ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state for Beach Reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation. (Did not violate 5th and 14th Amendments)

Question 31

Munn v. Illinois (1876)

Answer 31

The court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a violation of due process. The Court established the principle of public recognition of Private Business in the public interest. The court found that regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good.

Question 32

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (1974)

Answer 32

The court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a “single family”. The court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values. The court thus extended the concept of zoning under the police power to include a community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles. Related to due process in the 14th Amendment.

Question 33

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977)

Answer 33

The court reviewed a zoning case that denied rezoning a property from a single-family to multifamily. The developer, Metropolitan, contracted to purchase a tract within Arlington Heights in order to build low-income and moderate income housing. The contract was contingent upon securing rezoning as well as federal housing assistance.

The Village denied the rezoning request by the developer, and the developer and individual respondents filed injunctive and declaratory relief that alleged the denial was racially discriminatory and violated the equal protection cause of the 14th Amendment and the Fair Housing Act. The US Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Village acted in a racially discriminatory manner and overturned findings of the previous two courts.

Question 34

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (1975)

Answer 34

The court found at Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multifamily, mobile home, or low and moderate income housing.

The court required that the town opened its doors to those of all income levels.

Question 35

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Answer 35

The case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and determined that government is prohibit from substantially burdening religious institutions.

The Cty of Boerne, TX prohibited a church in historic district from enlarging. The Supreme Court ruled that the RFRA was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforcement powers of the 14th amendment. In the end, the church and city came to an agreement to leave 80% of the church intact and allow a new 750-seat auditorium on the rear of the auditorium.

Question 36

What was generally upheld in Netcow v. City of Canbridge (1928)?

Answer 36

The Supreme Court found that a zoning designation on a property restricting it to certain uses was not a violation of due process and that it was not “serious and highly injurous” so long as it promotes health, safety, convenience, or general waiver of inhabitants of the city.