Law Cases Flashcards by Kyle McGowan

Welch v. Swasey (1909)

zoning case
building heights proper use of police power
14th amendment

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Eubank v. Richmond (1912)

zoning case

- ordinance that regulated buildings is a proper use of police power

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)

zoning case

- brickyard restrictions/regulation of location of land use did not violate 14th amendment

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Euclid v. Amber (1926)

zoning case

- upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Nectow v. Cambride (1928)

zoning case

- created “rational basis test”; ordinance had to have valid public purpose

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo (1970)

growth management case

- growth mgmt law favored development near existing infrastructure

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Const. Industry of Sonoma v. Petaluma (1975)

growth management case

- quotas on annual # of building permits

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Assoc. Home Builders v. Livermore (1976)

growth management case

- upheld a moratorium on building permits

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Brandt Revocable Trust v. US (2013)

challenge to federal act

- when land w/ easement is abandoned, easement diappears

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Massachusetts v. EPA (2006)

challenge to federal act

- EPA must provide justif. why it doesn’t regulate GHGs

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Rapanos v. USA (2006)

challenge to federal act

- Army Corps of Engineers determines if there is nexus between wetland and waterway

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

SD Warren v. Maine EPA (2006)

challenge to federal act

- found that hydroelectric dams subject to Clean Water Act

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

TX Dept of Housing v. Inclusive Communities (2015)

challenge to federal act

- disparate impacts appropriate for Fair Housing Act

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976)

1st Amendment

- zoning to decentralize porn theatres OK

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Metromedia v. San Diego (1981)

1st amendment

- not OK to treat diff. commercial v. non-commercial speech

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)

1st amendment

- ban on signs on utility poles OK, if doesn’t regulate content

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Renton v. Playtime Theatres (1986)

1st amendment case

- zoning ordinance limiting adult businesses to one area

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Religious Persons + Institutionalized Persons Act of 200

1st amendment law

- no burdens on religious assembly

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Reed v. Gilbert AZ (2014)

1st amendment case

- not OK to put more regs on signs for public meetings

US v. Gettysburg Electric Railway (1896)

5th amendment case

- historic preservation OK, not taking

Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922)

5th amendment case

- if regulation goes too far, it is a taking

Berman v. Parker (1954)

5th amendment

- aesthetics & urban renewal is valid public purpose

Fred French Investing v. City of NY (1976)

5th amendment case

- City park on private land not OK

Penn Central v. NYC

5th amendment case

- preservation laws not a taking

Agins v. Tiburon (1980)

- 5th amendment case | - zoning at low density OK, not taking

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV (1982)

- 5th amendment case | - govt installed cables a taking

1st Evangelical of Glendale v. County of LA (1987)

- 5th amendment | - if property is unusable, it is taking

Keystone Bituminous Coal v. Benedicts (1987)

- 5th amendment | - regulation prohibitng coal mining under structures OK

FCC v. Florida Power Corp (1987)

- 5th amendment | - FCC regulating rents for poles not taking

Nollan v. California Coastal Commision (1987)

- 5th amendment | - maintaining access to beach OK, but must compensate owner

Lucas v. South Carolina Coast Council (1992)

- 5th amendment | - if total reduction in value after ordinance, there is taking

Dolan v. Tigard (1994)

- 5th amendment | - "rough proportionality" test created

Suitim v. Tahoe (1997)

- 5th amendment case | - don't need to attempt to sell before suing for taking

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes (1999)

- 5th amendment case | - repeated denial of in-conformance development is a taking

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

- 5th amendment case | - getting title after reg. date doesn't bar from taking claim

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)

- 5th amendment case | - moratorium while comp. plan was underway is not taking

Lingle v. Chevron

- 5th amendment case | - overturned portion of Agins v. Tiburon; taking challenge had to be based on severity of burden

City of Rancho PV v. Abrams (2005)

- 5th amendment case | - denied antenna is not taking

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

- 5th amendment case | - economic development is valid use of eminent domain

Stop the Beach v. Florida EPA (2009)

- 5th amendment case | - submerged lands filled in not a taking

Koontz v. St. John's River Water (2012)

- 5th amendment case | - making owner agree to dedicate land for public not OK

Munn v. Illinois (1876)

- 14th amendment case | - state law regulating pricing not constitute taking/violation of due process

Village of Belle Terre v. Boarass (1974)

- 14th amendment - law prohibiting >2 unmarried ppl in house - police power to people's lifestyles

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro Housing (1977)

- 14th amendment | - racial discrimination & zoning

Southern Burlington NAACP v. Mt Laurel (1975)

- 14th amendment | - town had to open itself to all housing types

Boerne v. Flores (1997)

- 14th amendment | - challenged Religious freedom restoration act