Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

AICP Law+others > Law > Flashcards

Law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE 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
Q

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

A

No land use regulation that imposes substantial burden on religious assembly unless legitimate governmental interest.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Reed et al. v. Town of Gilbert Arizona [2014]

A

Sign ordinance must be content neutral.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Company [1896]

A

Acquisition of Gettysburg battlefield valid public purpose (historic preservation).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon [1922]

A

If regulation goes too far, it is a taking.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Berman v. Parker [1954]

A

Aesthetics is valid public purpose, rid of blight.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York [1976]

A

Public park on private property so no income producing use of property so taking but not that required just compensation.

31
Q

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York [1978]

A

Penn Central not allowed to develop air space over station because of preservation law. Not a taking. Historic preservation.

32
Q

Agins v. City of Tiburon

A

Test for determining whether a zoning ordinance will be considered a taking is the “substantially advances” a legitimate state interest test.

33
Q

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation [1982]

A

Government authorized permanent physical occupation of private property (cable equipment) was taking and required just compensation.

34
Q

First Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles [1987]

A

If property is unusable for period of time than ordinance can be set aside and government pays for damages.

35
Q

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis [1987]

A

Coal beneath public buildings had to remain 50% for stability but Coal company thought it was a taking. Regulations are not a taking.

36
Q

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation [1987]

A

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
Q

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission [1987]

A

Maintaining public beach access is legitimate government interest but it a taking and compensation for public use of land required. Logical Nexus.

38
Q

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council [1992]

A

Taking if total reduction in value of property after regulation in place. Land purchased prior so it was a taking.

39
Q

Dolan v. Tigard [1994]

A

“Rough proportionality” - government can require person to deed over part of land as a condition for a building permit if in public interest.

40
Q

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency [1997]

A

Do not have to attempt to sell development rights before filing regulatory suit for taking.

41
Q

Chief of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd. [1999]

A

Repeated denials of permits deprive owner of economically viable use of land so taking.

42
Q

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et. al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et. al. [2002]

A

Moratoria while formulation of comprehensive plan is not a taking requiring compensation. Whole parcel test.

43
Q

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc. [2005]

A

The “substantially advances” test would no longer be used to determine regulatory takings. (reversed part of Agins v. Tiburon)

44
Q

City of Rando Palos Verdes v. Abrams [2005]

A

Ready operator that was denied conditional use permit for antenna could seek damages because distort intent of Telecommunications Act of 1996.

45
Q

Kelo v. City of New London [2005]

A

Economic development, even if taking, is valid use of eminent domain.

46
Q

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection [2010]

A

Submerged lands that would be filled by state not a taking without just compensation.

47
Q

Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management [2012]

A

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
Q

Munn v. Illinois [1876]

A

Public regulation of private property not violate due process when regulation becomes necessary for public good.

49
Q

Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas [1974]

A

Constitutional for zoning ordinance to limit number of individuals that may inhabit a dwelling.

50
Q

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation [1977]

A

Insufficient evidence to prove Village acted in racially discriminatory manner.

51
Q

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel [1975]

A

Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, and low-income housing.

52
Q

Mount Laurel II [1983]

A

Governments had to provide “their fair share” of low-income housing.

53
Q

City of Boerne v. Flores [1997]

A

Church not allowed to enlarge in historic district - ruled that act was unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers.

54
Q

Police Power

A

Without just compensation.

55
Q

Eminent Domain

A

With just compensation.

56
Q

Hunter v. City of Pittsburg

A

Established sovereignty of a state over its municipalities

57
Q

Dillon Rule

A

Local governments do not have the authority to make decisions - under state governance.

58
Q

Home Rule

A

Local governments have authority to make decisions that have not been addressed by the state.

59
Q

Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc.

A

Legitimized the planned unit development (PUD) process.

60
Q

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe

A

Established “hard look” doctrine for environmental impact review.

61
Q

Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission

A

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is enforceable.

62
Q

Sierra Club v. Morton [1972]

A

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
Q

Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County

A

Zoning must be consistent with comp plan.

64
Q

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

A

Endangered Species Act prohibits the completion of the Tellico Dam.

65
Q

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank

A

“Claim of a taking is premature where a property owner fails to seek the possible relief of variance and condemnation procedures.”

66
Q

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon

A

Government can restrict land development to protect endangered species, not a taking.

67
Q

Just v. Marinette County

A

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
Q

General Electric Co. v. Litton Industrial Automation Systems, Inc. [1990]

A

CERCLA validated. Requires cleanup of hazardous waste sites - only open to interpretation in acts of God, war.

69
Q

Monsanto v. U.S. [1989]

A

Decision: Absentee landowner liable for pollution on land leased to someone else, liable for removal.

70
Q

Palazzolo v. State of Rhode Island [2001]

A

Not allowing landowner to fill wetlands was not a taking - land was purchased after regulations were in effect.

71
Q

Rough Proportionality

A

Dedication must be proportional to harm on land (Dolan v. Tigard)

72
Q

Logical Nexus

A

Government must show that property owner’s land will harm the public interest and a dedication would mitigate this harm. (Nollan v. CCC)

73
Q

“Givings”

A

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.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions