Law

Question 1

**Hadacheck v Sabastian (1915)

Answer 1

no right to maintain a nuisance and no compensation for abatement; valid exercise of police power (brick yard LA) early zoning case

Question 2

Munn v Illinois (1876)

Answer 2

regulation of business does not violate 14th amendment

railroad hauling rates

police power, public good

Question 3

who has police power?

Answer 3

states under 10th amendment

Not Federal

Question 4

what is federalism

Answer 4

sharing of power between state and national government

Question 5

religion amendment

Answer 5

1st

Question 6

free speech amendment

Answer 6

1st

Question 7

due process, private property, takings amendment

Answer 7

5th amendment

Question 8

police power delegated amendment

Answer 8

10th

Question 9

due process and equal protection

Answer 9

14th amendment

Question 10

Pennsylvania Coal v Mahon (1922)

Answer 10

takings case

coal sells surface rights to mahon, keeps subsurface rights

Question 11

Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

Answer 11

takings case

compensation required when regulations deny all economic use of the property

couldn’t develop homes after a hurricane

Question 12

Penn Central Transportation Co V City of New York (1978)

Answer 12

NYC Landmarks Preservation

Question 13

First English Evangelical Lutheran Churh v LA County

Answer 13

flood, church camp cant rebuild due to moratorium

SCOTUS says monetary damages are allowed for a temporary taking,

Question 14

Tahoe sierra preservation council v Tahoe regional planning agency (2000)

Answer 14

a temporary moratorium is not a per se taking

Question 15

Berman V Parker (1954)

Answer 15

taking can be for aesthetic purposes not just for a public use (5th amendment)

Question 16

Kelo v City of New London (2005)

Answer 16

CRA justified condemnation of entire nbd solely on economic development and job creation grounds

proposed action is sufficient public purpose under 5th amendment and upheld use of eminent domain for economic development purposes

Question 17

Nollan v california coastal commission

Answer 17

exactions case
essential nexus

exaction must demonstrate essential nexus to alegitimate state interest

Question 18

Dolan v city of tigard

Answer 18

exactions case, rough proportionality

essential nexus is not enough
must also be rough proportionality between the exaction and its impact on the property

fair share agreements

Question 19

Village of Belle Terre v Boraas (1974)

Answer 19

long island town prohibiting student housing on basis of family,

Question 20

Mt Laurel 1 (Southern Burlington NAACP v Mt Laurel)

Answer 20

urban renewal leads to white flight

MT laurel township zones for PUDs

township uses police power to discourage black families to stay

NJ supreme court

Question 21

Young v American Mini Theaters (1976)

Answer 21

free speech

Detroit adopts zoning to disperse adult theaters

law upheld “speech” is not absolute; plurality decision no consensus

Question 22

City of Renton v Playtime Theaters (1986)

Answer 22

Seattle suburb prevents adult theaters near schools

supreme court upheld, separation or concentration requirements for adult uses ok

Question 23

Metromedia Inc v City of San Diego (1981)

Answer 23

city banned almost all off premise outdoor advertising to improve city appearance

bans exception allowing onsite commercial advertising discriminated against noncommercial speech

court held affording greater degree of protection to commercial than noncommercial was reaching too far into realm of protected speech

Question 24

RLUIPA: Religious land use and institutionalized persons act (2000)

Answer 24

prevent invidious discrimination against free exercise of religion

land use regs can’t impose substantial burden, or not treat all religious assembly equally

Question 25

Mugler v Kansas (1887)

Answer 25

Mugler buys brewery; state bans alcohol; Mugler argues 14th amendment taking and due process violations

scotus: ordinance upheld; state police power to prohibit use of property to protect health is not a taking and no compensation required

Question 26

Euclid vs Ambler (1926)

Answer 26

case where zoning is determined not to be a taking

cleveland village creates comprehensive zone; ambler sees 75% reduction in value; has no immediate plan to develop

scotus:zoning cannot be arbitrary or capricious; 5th amendment due process; upholds standard state planning/zoning enabling acts

Question 27

Golden vs Town of Ramapo (1972)

Answer 27

Golden applies for plat in town but refuses to build required improvements in advance of need; plat is denied

result: ordinance upheld; first statement of power of a town to plan for its future and a national model is born

Question 28

construction industry association v city of Petaluma (1975)

Answer 28

city comp plan rations issuance of building permits to 500/yr for 5 years w growth management boundary

development industry sues federal court argues violates right to travel and 14th amendment due process

US District Court rejects argument; 9th circuit upheld Petaluma’s right to preserve its small town character, another model

Question 29

associated home builders of greater eastbay vs city of livermore

Answer 29

Livermore enacted ordinance prohibiting new res until utility standards met

calif supreme court found no determination, not enough facts

court can defer to the judgement of the municipalities legislative body

Question 30

what is first step when bill gets submitted federal

Answer 30

introduced and gets assigned to a committee

Question 31

what is first step when bill becomes law (state)

Answer 31

gets read (first reading) then goes to a committee after that

Question 32

what takings test was established in agins vs tiburon

Answer 32

there is a reasonable relationship between the exaction and the property

appeland aquired 5 acres of unimproved land. density restrictions.