Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

AICP Law+others > Law > Flashcards

Law Flashcards

1
Q

First Amendment

A

Freedom of speech, religion, association

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Fifth Amendment

A

Just compensation for takings, eminent domain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Fourteenth Amendment

A

Due process, equal protection
Substantive - validity of rule itself
Procedural - whether rule applied fairly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Nuisance Laws

A

Prior to zoning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Right to Farm Laws

A

Who was there first

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Spur Industries v. Webb Development Co. [1972]

A

Feed lot considered a public nuisance due to smell of manure and loud animal noises.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Amortization of Non-Conforming Use

A

Elimination of existing use over a period of time with no compensation paid.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Welch v. Swasey [1909]

A

Municipalities have the right to regulate building height. Proper exercise of police power.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Eubank v. City of Richmond [1912]

A

Ordinance is valid use of police power.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Hadacheck v. Sebastian [1915]

A

Approved regulation of location of land uses. Brick production company prohibited in specific locations okay.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. [1926]

A

Zoning ordinance upheld as valid use of police power.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Nectow v. City of Cambridge [1928]

A

Zoning ordinance had no valid public purpose so violation of 14th amendment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo [1972]

A

Growth management point system upheld - developers could increase point totals by providing public utilities/facilities.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma [1975]

A

Upheld quotas on annual number of building permits issued.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore [1976]

A

Upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits to reduce pressure on infrastructure/schools.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States [2013]

A

1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants easement for railroad’s land - if abandoned, reverts to previous owner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Massachusetts v. EPA [2006]

A

Must provide reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gasses.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Rapanos v. United States [2006]

A

All waters with a “significant nexus” to “navigable waters” are covered under the CWA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection [2006]

A

Hydroelectric dams subject to section 401 of CWA.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. [2015]

A

Policies that inadvertently regulate minorities to poor areas violate Fair Housing Act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Young v. American Mini Theaters [1976]

A

Zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses upheld.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Metromedia v. City of San Diego [1981]

A

Commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers of Vincent [1984]

A

Regulation of signs valid for aesthetic reasons as long as content not regulated.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc. [1986]

A

Placing restrictions on time, place, and manner of adult entertainment acceptable but cannot prohibit.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
No land use regulation that imposes substantial burden on religious assembly unless legitimate governmental interest.
26
Reed et al. v. Town of Gilbert Arizona [2014]
Sign ordinance must be content neutral.
27
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Company [1896]
Acquisition of Gettysburg battlefield valid public purpose (historic preservation).
28
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon [1922]
If regulation goes too far, it is a taking.
29
Berman v. Parker [1954]
Aesthetics is valid public purpose, rid of blight.
30
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York [1976]
Public park on private property so no income producing use of property so taking but not that required just compensation.
31
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York [1978]
Penn Central not allowed to develop air space over station because of preservation law. Not a taking. Historic preservation.
32
Agins v. City of Tiburon
Test for determining whether a zoning ordinance will be considered a taking is the “substantially advances” a legitimate state interest test.
33
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation [1982]
Government authorized permanent physical occupation of private property (cable equipment) was taking and required just compensation.
34
First Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles [1987]
If property is unusable for period of time than ordinance can be set aside and government pays for damages.
35
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis [1987]
Coal beneath public buildings had to remain 50% for stability but Coal company thought it was a taking. Regulations are not a taking.
36
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation [1987]
The Court found that a taking had not occurred. The public utilities challenged a federal statute that authorized the Federal Communications Commission to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles.
37
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission [1987]
Maintaining public beach access is legitimate government interest but it a taking and compensation for public use of land required. Logical Nexus.
38
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council [1992]
Taking if total reduction in value of property after regulation in place. Land purchased prior so it was a taking.
39
Dolan v. Tigard [1994]
"Rough proportionality" - government can require person to deed over part of land as a condition for a building permit if in public interest.
40
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency [1997]
Do not have to attempt to sell development rights before filing regulatory suit for taking.
41
Chief of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd. [1999]
Repeated denials of permits deprive owner of economically viable use of land so taking.
42
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et. al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et. al. [2002]
Moratoria while formulation of comprehensive plan is not a taking requiring compensation. Whole parcel test.
43
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc. [2005]
The “substantially advances” test would no longer be used to determine regulatory takings. (reversed part of Agins v. Tiburon)
44
City of Rando Palos Verdes v. Abrams [2005]
Ready operator that was denied conditional use permit for antenna could seek damages because distort intent of Telecommunications Act of 1996.
45
Kelo v. City of New London [2005]
Economic development, even if taking, is valid use of eminent domain.
46
Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection [2010]
Submerged lands that would be filled by state not a taking without just compensation.
47
Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management [2012]
Town agreed to issue permit if property owner deeded rest of property in conservation easement. He said no and they denied permit. Was a taking because no specific regulation requiring the easement.
48
Munn v. Illinois [1876]
Public regulation of private property not violate due process when regulation becomes necessary for public good.
49
Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas [1974]
Constitutional for zoning ordinance to limit number of individuals that may inhabit a dwelling.
50
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation [1977]
Insufficient evidence to prove Village acted in racially discriminatory manner.
51
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel [1975]
Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, and low-income housing.
52
Mount Laurel II [1983]
Governments had to provide "their fair share" of low-income housing.
53
City of Boerne v. Flores [1997]
Church not allowed to enlarge in historic district - ruled that act was unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers.
54
Police Power
Without just compensation.
55
Eminent Domain
With just compensation.
56
Hunter v. City of Pittsburg
Established sovereignty of a state over its municipalities
57
Dillon Rule
Local governments do not have the authority to make decisions - under state governance.
58
Home Rule
Local governments have authority to make decisions that have not been addressed by the state.
59
Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc.
Legitimized the planned unit development (PUD) process.
60
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe
Established "hard look" doctrine for environmental impact review.
61
Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is enforceable.
62
Sierra Club v. Morton [1972]
Supreme Count ruled that Sierra Club could not sue Forest Service for allowing ski resort b/c it had not suffered economic, aesthetic, environmental injury.
63
Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County
Zoning must be consistent with comp plan.
64
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
Endangered Species Act prohibits the completion of the Tellico Dam.
65
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank
"Claim of a taking is premature where a property owner fails to seek the possible relief of variance and condemnation procedures."
66
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon
Government can restrict land development to protect endangered species, not a taking.
67
Just v. Marinette County
Environmental protection laws are reasonable exercise of police power - not a taking. Natural state of shore is a public interest > landowners right to develop.
68
General Electric Co. v. Litton Industrial Automation Systems, Inc. [1990]
CERCLA validated. Requires cleanup of hazardous waste sites - only open to interpretation in acts of God, war.
69
Monsanto v. U.S. [1989]
Decision: Absentee landowner liable for pollution on land leased to someone else, liable for removal.
70
Palazzolo v. State of Rhode Island [2001]
Not allowing landowner to fill wetlands was not a taking - land was purchased after regulations were in effect.
71
Rough Proportionality
Dedication must be proportional to harm on land (Dolan v. Tigard)
72
Logical Nexus
Government must show that property owner's land will harm the public interest and a dedication would mitigate this harm. (Nollan v. CCC)
73
"Givings"
Property owners pay nothing for an increase in value of their property from land-use regulations.

AICP Law+others (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions