Law 2

Question 1

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe

Answer 1

Sued to prevent building highway through a park. Supreme Court ruled that agencies have limits on discretionary powers and lower courts had to review more documentation to make decision.

Question 2

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968)*

Answer 2

Supreme Court rules that federal government can intervene in private sales if such sales are racially discriminatory - ends racially restrictive covenants

Question 3

Just v. Marinette County

Answer 3

Municipalities can restrict infill of wetlands and shorelines

Question 4

Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners (1973)*

Answer 4

SPOT ZONING or zoning changes without supporting evidence such as comp plan are unconstitutional.

Question 5

Hills v. Gautreaux

Answer 5

Chicago Housing Authority found to have engaged in discriminatory practices by not building affordable housing in white neighborhoods. Significant in that it was accepted into evidence that housing vouchers provided better economic mobility for families using them,

Question 6

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

Answer 6

Ruled that an injunction on Tellico Dam Project was constitutional because Endangered Species Act protected the Snail Darter. Dam would be built after act of congress in 1972 after species relocated.

Question 7

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York

Answer 7

Supreme Court found a regulation prohibiting an electric company from advertising the use of electricity violation of 2nd amendment.

Question 8

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.*

Answer 8

Denial of a care home for “mentally-retarded” unconstitutional under 14th equal protection clause

Question 9

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City

Answer 9

County commission changed density allowances after a plan had been approved and subsequently denied plats. A jury trial found that a taking had occurred and property owner entitled to money, Supreme Court found that a taking had not occurred because property owner had not exhausted all remedies to seek final administrative decision of denial.

Question 10

Coming to the nuisance

Answer 10

Courts are likely to view favorably defendants of nuisance claims if the nuisance existed prior to plaintiff locating or being effected by nuisance. Especially common in agricultural nuisances.

Question 11

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania (2019)

Answer 11

Overturned Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank decision. Municipality passes ordinance requiring public access to all cemeteries. Property owner sued with a takings claim but not follow inverse condemnation process. Supreme Court found that requiring plaintiff to run all courses of action to seek remedy prior to filing takings claim is too burdensome.

Question 12

City of Ladue v. Gilleo*

Answer 12

Property owner placed yard signs with political message. City ordinance prohibited personal yard signs of all content. Supreme Court found unconstitutional because it eliminated entire form of free speech.

Question 13

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Answer 13

Supreme Court interprets Clean Air Act allowing EPA and point source contributors to calculate emissions based on “bubble” of multiple contributors rather than as individual contributors.

Question 14

Types of Easements

Answer 14

Negative - Conservation
Appurtenant - Use another’s land
Easement in Gross - personal permission
Express grant - written permission
Express Reservation - written permission to reserve a right
Implication - reasonable and intended
Prescription - adverse possession, against wishes of property owner. Must be: Open, Adverse, Continuous, Claim of Right

Question 15

Termination of Easement

Answer 15

Expiration
Unity of Ownership/Merger
Release
Abandonment
Condemnation

Question 16

Procedural Due Process

Answer 16

Follows all procedures and rules to establish a rule or reach a decision

Question 17

Substantive Due Process

Answer 17

Rational relationship to legitimate government interest

Question 18

Washington ex Rel. Seattle Title Trust Co v. Roberge

Answer 18

Ordinance granted undue power to neighbors over use of property to expand adult home. Procedural Due Process violation

Question 19

Lordship Park Assn. v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Answer 19

Relying on draft, un-adopted plan to make decision violates due process.

Question 20

Welton v. Hamilton*

Answer 20

BZA without clear rules or guidelines on what should or should not be granted a variance is not a granted power of the state

Question 21

Thomas Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago*

Answer 21

Chicago ordinance prohibits billboards unless majority of frontage property owners consent is ruled lawful

Question 22

JONES v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Answer 22

California Court finds that Los Angeles ordinances criminalizing sleeping in public spaces as unconstitutional.

Question 23

Austin v. Older

Answer 23

Gas station built on property day before property zoned Residential by city initiated zoning ordinance. 10 years later when property owner tries to remodel gas station, is denied permit because zoning doesn’t match use. Supreme Court found the denial constitutional even if the inability to expand causes loss of business

Question 24

Severability Clause

Answer 24

If any portion of a law or ordinance is found unconstitutional, only that portion that is found unconstitutional may be removed.

Question 25

Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. (1871)

Answer 25

Wisconsin statute permits construction of dam that floods private property. SC rules that the flooding of adjacent lands is a taking and owners must be compensated.

Question 26

Buchanan v. Warley (1917)*

Answer 26

Louisville had an ordinance that prohibited blacks from living on a block where the majority of residents were white. Since 8 of 10 houses were occupied by whites, Warley was not allowed to live on the block. SC ruled that state regulations cannot discriminate on race. Violation of equal protections clause (14th Amendment)