Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Erica's Cards > Law - 5th Amendment Cases > Flashcards

Law - 5th Amendment Cases Flashcards

1
Q

U.S. v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co.

A
  1. Supreme Court. Historic preservation of national battlefield served a public purpose.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon

A
  1. Supreme Court. First takings ruling. Found a taking will be recognized if regulation goes too far. Mining rights.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Berman v. Parker

A
  1. Supreme Court. Held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. Urban renewal is a valid public purpose.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York

A
  1. NY Court of Appeals. City required public park, leaving no income producing use of property. Court invalidated reg., but did not require compensation.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York

A
  1. Supreme Court. Landmark preservation law applied to Grand Central Station did not constitute a taking.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Agins v. City of Tiburon

A
  1. Supreme Court. Upheld that low-density zoning was not a taking. 5 acres of unimproved land for res. development.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

A
  1. Supreme Court. Gov. authorized cables on an building - occupation of private property constituting a taking requiring compensation.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of LA

A
  1. Supreme Court. Even temporary taking requires just compensation.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Keystone Bituminous Coal Assoc. v. DeBenedictis

A
  1. Supreme Court. Regs. did not constitute a taking if protecting public interest.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

FCC v. Florida Power Corp.

A
  1. Public utilities challenged federal regulation of utility pole rents. Court did not find a taking. Does not fully deprive of compensation.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

A
  1. Supreme Court. CA must provide just compensation for public use of private beachfront property owners’ land. Must be an “essential nexus” between state interest and actual conditions of the permit. Requiring public access did not create any new ocean views.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

A
  1. Supreme Court. Found taking if total reduction in value caused by regulations (except for nuisance issues).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Dolan v. Tigard

A
  1. Supreme Court. Exaction must be “roughly proportional” to be legitimate.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

A
  1. Supreme Court. Property owners do not need to attempt to sell development rights before claiming a taking.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.

A
  1. Supreme Court. Found repeated denials of permit for development that conformed to comp plan and zoning constituted a taking.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

A
  1. Supreme Court. Found acquisition of title after effective date of regulations does not bar takings claims. But did not find that there was a taking.
17
Q

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et. al

A
  1. Supreme Court. Moratoria on development (while undertaking planning for the area) do not constitute a taking.
18
Q

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.

A
  1. Supreme Court. Hawaii limited rent charged by oil companies to lessees of service stations. Overturned part of Agins v. Tiburon declaring reg does not constitute taking if in public interest. Depends on severity of reg. imposed.
19
Q

City of Ranch Palos Verdes v. Abrams

A
  1. Supreme Court. Ruled that denial of antenna permit was not a taking because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
20
Q

Kelo v. City of New London

A
  1. Supreme Court. Economic development is a valid use of eminent domain. Even if seized land is sold to private developer. Broad interpretation of “public use.”
21
Q

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection

A
  1. Supreme Court. Submerged land that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking.
22
Q

Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management

A
  1. Supreme Court. Requiring dedication and mitigation work was a taking as there was no regulation requiring it.
23
Q
A

Erica's Cards (42 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions