Law 3

Question 1

Cochran v Preston

Answer 1

Baltimore ordinance limiting height for fire safety is valid

Question 2

Attny General v Williams

Answer 2

1903. SCOTUS holds that giving a person a right of action against a city is an adequate provision for compensation in a takings situation.

Question 3

Romar Realty v Board of Commission

Answer 3

Overturned a law which sought to establish building heights & lot lines expressly for “aesthetic considerations” because such concerns do not impact health, safety, & welfare of a community.

Question 4

Inspector of Building, Lowell v Stoklosa

Answer 4

Upheld city ordinance which created sepate areas/zones for business & residential areas.

Question 5

Zahn v Public Works of LA

Answer 5

Upheld legislation that prohibited business uses in residential areas even if it diminished some of the property’s value and there were business operations existing in the area that had been established prior to the zoning change

Question 6

Dowsey v Kensington

Answer 6

Found that there is fine line between reasonable use of police powers to restrict lawful use of private property and takings. Determined that the ordinance stepped over the line & deemed unconstitutional.

Question 7

Welton v Hamilton

Answer 7

Overturned a Chicago ordinance which delegated zoning appeals to another body that had not been elected by the citizens without providing standards for ruling & criteria for judgement which resulted in the body having arbitrary authority.

Question 8

US v Certain Lands, City of Louisville KY

Answer 8

Overturned a proposed US gov’t action to secure lands through condemnation for purpose of cleaning slums as a provision of the National Industrial Recovery Act. Determined the federal gov’t has no police powers in local land use concerns.

Question 9

People of Twohy v City of Chicago

Answer 9

Upheld the right for a city to condem slums/blighted areas for public ownership & that levying taxes for said purpose is a legitimate exercise of a governments taxation powers.

Question 10

Ayres v City of LA

Answer 10

Upheld the right for the LA planning commission to place conditions on a development during the review process. A nexus existed between the development conditions & protection of public interests.

Question 11

Ficher v Bedminster Township

Answer 11

1952. NJ Supreme Court. Upholds ordinance establishing large minimum lot sizes. Notes plaintiff could have applied for a variance.

Question 12

Akron v Chapman

Answer 12

1953. OH Supreme Court says that the right to continue a non-conforming use falls under Article 4 of US Constitution and Article 1 of OH Const. Due process violated by requiring amortization of nonconforming uses.

Question 13

Harbisom v City of Buffalo

Answer 13

1958. NY Appeals Court. Court holds that phasing out non-conforming uses is okay if loss to owner is insubstantial, or if public benefits are greater than detriment to owner. Okay to limit enlargements.

Question 14

Jenad v Village of Scarsdale

Answer 14

1966. NY Appeals Court. Court upholds requirement of park land dedication or a fee in lieu. Says its a valid exercise of police power as long as municipality shows schools, parks, playgrounds, etc. will be needed.

Question 15

Serrano v Priest

Answer 15

1971. CA SC said CA method of financing public education through property taxes is discriminatory and furthers no compelling state interest. Violation of equal protection due to disparities in tax revenues.

Question 16

Baker v Town if Milwaukee

Answer 16

1975. OR Supreme Court. Citizen sues to make existing ZO comply with new comp plan. Court says a comp plan is legislative and town has a duty to implement it through ZO.

Question 17

Warth v Seldin

Answer 17

1975. SCOTUS can’t intervene in exclusionary zoning cases if plaintiffs cannot demonstrate how municipal zoning causes direct injury and exclusion

Question 18

City of Eastlake v Forest City Ent.

Answer 18

1976. Referendum case. SCOTUS upholds the OH Constitution, which gives the people referendum power over any question municipalities can control by legislation. The people reserved the power unto themselves, so it is not an unlawful delegation of legislative power.

Question 19

Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp*

Answer 19

1932. NY Supreme Court. Nuisance case that claims Bove should have known, based on the area’s geography and transportation connections, that she was building in an industrial location. Coke ovens operation okay. Does establish the idea that owners cannot make unreasonable use of his premises to the material annoyance of neighbors.

Question 20

San Jose Christian College v City of Morgan Hill

Answer 20

2002. US District Court. Claim under RLUIPA not successful. RLUIPA is not an exemption from land use regulations. Burden is allowed if it furthers a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive way of furthering that interest. SJCC gave no evidence showing it was burdened, or that Morgan Hill treated churches unequally.

Question 21

Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission**

Answer 21

1971. SCOTUS overturns an approval for a nuclear power plant due to failure to follow requirements of NEPA. First case to show the teeth in NEPA

Question 22

Sierra Club v. Morton**

Answer 22

1972. SCOTUS issues ruling on standing in environmental cases. Sierra Club lost the case, but won the war, as environmental groups only need to find one member with a personal interest in the threatened area to have standing to sue.

Question 23

Cohen v Des Plaines

Answer 23

1990. SCOTUS holds that zoning cannot give churches an advantage over commercial uses. Strikes down an ordinance allowing church daycares where commercial ones are not permitted.

Question 24

City of Erie v. Paps A.M.*

Answer 24

2000. Freedom of expression not violated by regulations requiring minimal clothing of exotic dancers.

Question 25

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech*

Answer 25

2000. An individual can be a “class of one” when claiming violation of the equal protection clause. Violation occurs when government treats one differently from others similarly situated AND there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment, even if there is no ill will or vindictivenes shown on the part of the government.