Law

Question 1

First Amendment

Answer 1

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association

Question 2

Fifth Amendment

Answer 2

Just compensation for takings

Question 3

Fourteenth Amendment

Answer 3

Due process, substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection

Question 4

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

Answer 4

(Zoning) The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height as a proper exercise of police power

Question 5

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

Answer 5

(Zoning) Court acknowledged that the establishment of building lines was a valid exercise of the police power, but not the authority of private citizens

Question 6

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

Answer 6

(5th Amendment) The Court found that 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. Also, restrictions on use are not a taking provided they do not go too far.

Question 7

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

Answer 7

(Zoning) Established zoning as a valid exercise of police power by local government that in general does not violate the constitutional protection of the right to property (14th Amendment). Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.

Question 8

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

Answer 8

(Growth Management) Recognized growth phasing programs as valid exercises of police power. Ramapo could keep its development points based on availability of public services to manage growth.

Question 9

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975/1983)

Answer 9

(Fourteenth Amendment)
1975 Formalized the concept of a regional “fair share” affordable housing burden. The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing. The Court required the town to open its doors to those of all income levels.

1983 All 567 municipalities in the state must build their “fair share” of affordable housing. A precedent-setting blow against racial segregation.

Question 10

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

Answer 10

(Fourteenth Amendment) Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts. The US Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Village acted in a racially discriminatory manner and overturned the findings of the previous two courts.

Question 11

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

Answer 11

(Fifth Amendment) Introduced a means-end balancing test for regulatory takings and validated historic preservation controls. The Court found that barring some development of air rights was not a taking when the interior of the property could be put to lucrative use.

Question 12

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

Answer 12

(First Amendment) The Court found 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 13

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

Answer 13

(Fifth Amendment) California must pay just compensation to beachfront property owners for the continuous public beach use of their land. Land-use restrictions, to be valid, must be tied directly to a specific public purpose. Must be a nexus between state’s interest and exaction.

Question 14

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

Answer 14

(Fifth Amendment) Compensation to be paid to landowners when new regulations deprive them of all economically beneficial land use. Restrictions on use must show nexus to nuisance

Question 15

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

Answer 15

(Fifth Amendment) 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.” Required a reasonable relationship between conditions and impact.

Question 16

City of Edmonds v. Oxford House (1995)

Answer 16

Recognizes that definitions of “family” contained in zoning ordinances that limit who may occupy a dwelling are subject to the requirements of the FHA.

Question 17

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

Answer 17

(Fifth Amendment) A temporary building moratorium for the purpose of conducting planning studies to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and morals is a legitimate use of police power and does not constitute a taking of any kind - but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (@ Penn v. NYC)

Question 18

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

Answer 18

(Fifth Amendment) The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent (see above) declaring that regulation of property does effect a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. 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 19

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

Answer 19

(Fifth Amendment) The Supreme Court ruled that economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain.

Question 20

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

Answer 20

(Fifth Amendment) Recognizes that states may fill submerged land without constituting a taking on the rights of littoral property owners.

Question 21

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

Answer 21

(Fifth Amendment) The Supreme Court ruled that the government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until a landowner agrees to dedicate land for public use

Question 22

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

Answer 22

(First Amendment) The US Supreme 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.

Question 23

Murr v. Wisconsin (2017)

Answer 23

(Fifth Amendment) Created a new test to determine the property unit (the denominator) for a regulatory takings analysis.

Question 24

Mugler v. Kansas; US Supreme Court (1887)

Answer 24

(Fourteenth Amendment) The Court found that a state law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. Validated state and local government actions that properly protect the public health, morals, and safety

Question 25

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

Answer 25

(Fifth Amendment) 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 26

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

Answer 26

(Zoning) The US Supreme Court upheld a municipal regulation that governed the placement of land uses.

Question 27

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

Answer 27

(Zoning) 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 28

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

Answer 28

(Fifth Amendment) The Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose. RDA may condemn properties that are unsightly, though non-deteriorated, if required to achieve objectives of duly established area redevelopment plan.

Question 29

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

Answer 29

(Fourteenth Amendment) Limiting residents of housing units to related individuals was a legitimate use of the police power, eliminating many fundamental civil rights challenges to local regulations.

Question 30

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

Answer 30

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

Question 31

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

Answer 31

(Growth Management) The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits. The phasing of development can be contingent on performance standards being met.

Question 32

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

Answer 32

(Fifth Amendment) A regulation that is not reasonably related to the police power and causes a property to lose all economic value constitutes a taking. Two prong test: a taking if: (i) does not substantially forward state interest or (ii) denies owner an economically viable use of their land

Question 33

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

Answer 33

(First Amendment) The Court found that the government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property that therefore constituted a taking requiring just compensation.

Question 34

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

Answer 34

(First Amendment) The US Supreme Court upheld a regulation that prohibited the attaching of signs to utility poles. The regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign.

Question 35

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

Answer 35

(First Amendment) Allowed a zoning ordinance limiting sexually-oriented businesses to 5% of the municipal land area to stand based on a study conducted on the negative effects the business type has on surrounding areas. The Court found that the city does not have to guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. Distance separation or concentration requirements for adult uses is OK if the regulation serves a substantial governmental interest and leaves open alternative methods of communication

Question 36

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

Answer 36

(Fifth Amendment) U.S. Supreme Court finds that even a temporary taking requires compensation.

Question 37

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

Answer 37

(Fifth Amendment) Zoning review under the Telecommunications Act does not include monetary damages or a lengthy review period. 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 38

Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976)

Answer 38

Communities can zone for location of adult entertainment establishments without necessarily violating the First Amendment

Question 39

Cohen v. Des Plaines

Answer 39

Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments; Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn’t

Question 40

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

Answer 40

Cities cannot define “family” so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other

Question 41

Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictus (1987)

Answer 41

Nature of state’s interest in regulation is a critical factor in determining whether a taking has occurred

Question 42

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997)

Answer 42

Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking

Question 43

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997)

Answer 43

Property owners need not sell their developmental rights before claiming the regulatory taking of property