Law

Question 1

Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909)

Answer 1

14th Amendment Case: Dimensions standards (building height) are a proper exercise of police power and does not violate equal protection and due process.

Question 2

Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912)

Answer 2

Dimensional standards (building setbacks) are a valid exercise of police power. In this case the court struck down the zoning ordinance, but acknowledged that the establishment of setbacks was a valid use of police power.

Question 3

Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915)

Answer 3

14th Amendment Case: First time the court upholds the regulation of land use (zoning). In this case, the court upheld an LA ordinance that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location.

Question 4

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926)

Answer 4

14th Amendment Case: The court upholds modern zoning as a valid use of police power. Established that zoning/land use was a valid PP if there was threat of nuisance.

Question 5

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

Answer 5

14th Amendment Case: Court established the RATIONAL BASIS TEST, that the zoning ordinance must have a valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public).

In this case the court struck down the zoning ordinance.

Question 6

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

Answer 6

Growth Management: THE GOLDEN RULE - Development approval can be conditioned on the availability of public utilities, facilities, and roadway access.

Question 7

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

Answer 7

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

Question 8

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

Answer 8

Growth Management: The court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.

Question 9

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

Answer 9

1st Amendment (Sexual Content): Court upholds zoning ordinance which decentralized sexually oriented business (Detroit).

Question 10

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981)

Answer 10

1st Amendment (Sign Content): Courts rules that commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs.

Question 11

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

Answer 11

1st Amendment (Sign Content): Court found that regulation of signs was valid for AESTHETIC reasons to long as it did not regulate content of the sign. AESTHETICS DOES ADVANCE A LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST. Court upheld LA ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles.

Question 12

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986)

Answer 12

1st Amendment (Sexual Content): Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexual uses to a single zoning district. The ordinance focused on secondary impacts/effects (traffic and crime) and did not specifically focus on content. The court also found that the city does not have to guarantee land availability for Sexual uses, however city’s cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment.

Question 13

City of Boerne v. Flores & Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

Answer 13

1st Amendment (Freedom of Religion) RLUIPA. Established that no government may implement land use regulations in a manner that imposes a 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 the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Question 14

Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014)

Answer 14

1st Amendment & 14th Amendment (Sign Content). Sign regulation that restrict the size, number, duration, and location of certain TYPES of signs. Court found that the city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages Sign ordinance must be CONTENT NEUTRAL.

Question 15

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

Answer 15

5th Amendment (Takings/Historic Preservation). The court ruled that the acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose.

Question 16

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

Answer 16

5th Amendment (Taking): If a regulation goes TOO FAR it will be recognized as a taking. First Takings Case.

Question 17

Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954)

Answer 17

5th Amendment (Takings): Urban Renewal is a valid public purpose. Court upheld that aesthetics is a valid public purpose.

Question 18

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York; New York Court of Appeals (1976)

Question 19

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

Answer 19

5th Amendment (Taking): Court found that the NYC Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking. Court Established following TESTS:

1) Extent of the diminution of value;
2) Interference with investment backed expectations;
3) Character of the government action.

Question 20

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982)

Answer 20

Cable company installed cables on a building to serve tenants of the building. The court found that the government authorized a PERMANENT PHYSICAL OCCUPATION of private property which constituted a taking requiring compensation.

Question 20

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

Answer 20

5th and 14th Amendment: Court upheld a zoning ordinance that created a low-density zone.

Question 21

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

Answer 21

Temporary taking of private property constitutes a taking. Court ruled that the County owe the property damages for the temporary taking.

Question 22

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

Answer 22

5th Amendment (Takings): Land Conservation Act prohibits mining coal that causes subsidence damage to pre-existing buildings (required 50% of the coal beneath four structures be kept in place to provide surface support). The court found that the regulation did not constitute a taking because the Act protected the public interests.

Question 23

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

Answer 23

5th Amendment (Takings): California Coastal Commission requires property owners of beach front properties seeking building permits to maintain beachfront access for the public in front of their properties. The court rules that the regulation serves a legitimate public interest, however, the CCC must provide just compensation to the property owners for the public use of their land.

Question 23

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 23

5th Amendment (Takings): FFC regulates rents charged by utility and cable operators for the use of utility poles. Court found that a taking did not occur.

Question 24

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

Answer 24

5th Amendment (Taking): Court found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value after the regulation is in place. The Court found that Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place and so the regulation constituted a taking.

Question 25

Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994)

Answer 25

5th Amendment (Taking): ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY. There has to be a connection between the requirement for exaction and development. Exactions can be legitimate only if the public benefit is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use.

Question 26

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

Answer 26

5th Amendment (Takings): TDR - The Court ruled that the property owner did not have to attempt to sell their development rights (through a TDR program) before filling a regulatory takings suit.

Question 27

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

Answer 27

Court found that repeated denials of development permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land. The development was in conformance with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.

Question 28

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001)

Answer 28

Court found that acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not create grounds for a taking.

Question 29

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

Answer 29

5th Amendment (Takings): Court found that the moratoria, put in place while the Regional Council formulated a Comprehensive Plan for the area, did not constitute a taking requiring compensation

Question 30

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

Answer 30

5th Amendment (Takings): Overturned a portion of Agins (Substantially Advance Legitimate State Interest). The Court found that takings claims had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed and not the effectiveness in furthering the governmental interest.

Question 31

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

Question 32

Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court (2005)

Answer 32

5th Amendment (Takings): Economic Development is a valid use of eminent domain, even if it involves taking private property and transferring to another private entity.

Question 33

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

Answer 33

5th Amendment (Takings): Submerged lands that would be filled by state beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property.

Question 34

Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management (2012)

Answer 34

5th Amendment (Takings):

Question 35

Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court (1876)

Answer 35

14th Amendment (Due Process): Court found that a state law regulating real estate pricing did not consist a violation of due process because the regulation of private property was necessary for the public good/interest.

Question 36

Mugler v. Kansas; US Supreme Court (1887)

Answer 36

State law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a violation of due process because the use had been declared by legislation to be injurious to health, morals or safety to the community.

Question 37

Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court (1974)

Answer 37

Court upheld the prohibition of unrelated persons living together as a single-family. Court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values through zoning.

Question 38

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court (1977)

Question 39

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

Answer 39

The Court found that ML has exclusionary zoning that prohibited, multi-family, mobile home, or low to moderate income housing. The court required the town open its doors to this of all incomes.

Question 40

City of Boerne v. Flores; U.S. Supreme Court (1997)