Law Cases Flashcards
Agins v City TIburon (CA)
SC upheld a city right to zone at low density
zoning not a taking if zoning substantially advance a state interest… substanitally adv. was later overturned by Chevron
After Dr and Ms Agins acquired 5 acres (20,000 m2) of unimproved property zoned one house per acre, the city announced that it intended to acquire it, and issued bonds to finance the taking. It filed an eminent domain action, but on the eve of trial abandoned it. Instead, it amended the zoning ordinance placing the subject land in a zone that permitted construction of one to five homes, the exact number being discretionary with the city. The owners contended that the applying for permit(s) to construct seriatim of one to five home would be economically infeasible and that the city intended to convert their land into open space by preventing its development. They sued seeking just compensation for a regulatory taking.
The California Supreme Court refused to recognize the existence of a regulatory taking cause of action, and held that the only remedy available to the owner would be a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to invalidate the regulation on grounds of denial of substantive due process.
the SC held that the test for determining whether a zoning ordinance will be considered a taking is the “substantially advances” a legitimate state interest test. This test has since been overruled by the Lingle v. Chevron (2005) case finding that the “substantially advances” test would no longer be used to determine regulatory takings, reverting to the precedent of Penn Central v. New York City (1978) of a “reasonable return” on investment.
Dolan v City of Tigard (OR)
rough proportionality test created for exactions
SC overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain
It is a landmark case regarding the practice of zoning and property rights, and has served to establish limits on the ability of cities and other government agencies to use zoning and land-use regulations to compel property owners to make unrelated public improvements as a condition to getting zoning approval, citing the violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
Petitioner Dolan, owner and operator of A-Boy Plumbing & Electrical Supply store in the city of Tigard, Oregon, applied for a permit to expand the store and pave the parking lot of her store. The city planning commission granted conditional approval, dependent on Dolan dedicating land to a public greenway along an adjacent creek, and developing a pedestrian and bicycle pathway in order to relieve traffic congestion. The decision was appealed to the Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), alleging that the land dedication requirements were not related to the proposed development, and thus constituted an uncompensated taking of her property, which is disallowed by the Fifth Amendment.
The Supreme Court overturned the state Land Use Board of Appeals and the Oregon appellate courts. The Court held that under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, a government agency may not require a person to surrender constitutional rights in exchange for discretionary benefits, where the property sought has little or no relationship to the benefit conferred. A two-prong test was applied: Whether or not there is an “essential nexus” (dollan v )between the permit conditions and legitimate state interest, and whether or not the degree of the exactions required by the permit condition bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed extra development.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)
14th
Two years post Euclid. Placed limitations on zoning (must promote valid public purpose)
SC used rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance bc it had “no valid public purpose” and violated due process 14th
In the Nectow case (1928), the plaintiff sued for a mandatory injunction for a permit to erect a building without regard to the zoning ordinance, which zoned the land residential.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Massachusetts court and found that the invasion of the plaintiff’s property right was “serious and highly injurious,” and that the zoning ordinance would not promote the health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the inhabitants of Cambridge.
The issue in Nectow (1928) was whether the zoning ordinance was constitutional as applied to the Plaintiff’s land. The US Supreme Court found that the zoning ordinance in question made no reasonable sense in placing the Plaintiff’s land in a residential district, reversing a lower court’s decision.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal (1992)
5th Amendment Takings
When does regulating land use rise to a taking
“regulatory taking”
Court relied on the trial court’s finding that Lucas’s lots had been rendered valueless by the state law. “[W]hen the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good…he has suffered a taking.”
Its a taking if total reduction of value after a regulation is in place bc land was purchased before
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v US EPA
Commonwealth of Massachusetts found that the EPA needs a reasonable explanation for why greenhouse gases would not be regulated.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)
If a regulation goes too far it is a taking. First takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th Amendment.
Court articulated the “balancing of interests” approach for reviewing taking claims.
Because the regulation went too far it became a taking.
The 1922 US Supreme Court case of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon set forth the “balancing of interests” approach for reviewing takings claims.
The Pennsylvania Coal Company entered into an agreement with Mahon to mine coal beneath his property. In 1921, Pennsylvania passed the Kohler Act that prevented miners from extracting below surface coal from land that supported buildings. When the Coal company notified Mahon that it would mine coal beneath his property Mahon filed suit. Pennsylvania Coal contented this constituted at taking under the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court found that Pennsylvania exceeded its police powers by diminishing the value of the land without a public interest.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v The City of New York (1978)
5th Amendment
Penn Central Transportation Co. v The City of New York primarily tested the Fifth Amendment. The New York City Landmarks Preservation Law of 1965 resulted in the designation of “landmarks” and “landmark sites.” Penn Central, which owned the Grand Central Terminal, was not permitted to build an office building above it. The Court held that the restrictions imposed did not prevent Penn Central from ever constructing above the terminal in the future, it simply prevented Penn Central from building this specific 50 story addition.
The Court found that the zoning restriction was substantially related to the general welfare of the city.
Golden vs. Town of Ramapo (1972)
Growth management.
The New York State Court of Appeals upheld the Town of Ramapo’s right to require performance standards to obtain a special building permit. A permit system awarded points to development proposals based on availability of public services.
Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope
The Court in 1968 found that planned unit developments are acceptable if the regulations focus on density requirements rather than specific rules for each lot.
Metromedia v City of San Diego
Metromedia v City of San Diego was found to violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech. In this case, the City of San Diego banned most outdoor advertising signs to improve aesthetics and prevent a distraction for motorists. The City only permitted on-site signs, not off-site signs. This Court found that this did violate the first and fourteenth amendment finding that this ban discriminated against noncommercial speech. In this case, they found that the ordinance provided a greater degree of freedom of speech protection to commercial speech.
Lingle v. Chevron
In Lingle v. Chevron the Court found that the takings clause should be based on the “severity of the burden” that the regulation imposes upon property rights and not whether the effect of the regulation is to “substantially advance” governmental interest. The substantially advances clause came from Agins v. Tiburon.
Hadacheck vs. Sebastian (1915)
LA Bricks / zoning
A city can prohibit a certain type of manufacture within a certain area without leading to an unconstitutional taking of property under the 14th Amendment.
Court found that zoning ordinance in LA that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th
This unanimous decision marked one of the earliest attempts to analyze the intersection of zoning laws with regulatory takings. Modern ordinances tend to be much more complex, but the analysis in this case has influenced later perspectives.
Euclid vs. Ambler (1926)
Court found that zoning did not violate the 14th. Court upheld modern zoning.
Court found that the use of police power for the purpose of protecting public welfare is a valid reason to use zoning.
Rapanos vs. US (2006)
Army Corp. must determine there is a significant nexus btw wetland and a navigable waterway. Challenged the federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
Act scope has been unsettled
First English Lutheran vs. LA Co (1987)
Flooded land owned by church was deemed unbuildable
Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that, because the church was unable to use its property during this time, a “taking” of the property had occurred.
If a property is unusable for a period of time then the ordinance can be set aside and prop owner needs compensation.
Nollan vs. CA Coastal Commission (1987)
Because the Nollans’ request to rebuild their home did not further the government’s interest in overcoming a perceived psychological barrier to using the beach, the condition was a regulatory taking without compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Though a public interest was being served by maintaining the easement, CA must pay compensation to the prop owners for the public use of their land.
Permit stipulation must further a government interest. (Incorrect psychological view was being applied)
City Council of the City of LA v. Vincent (1984)
Sign regulations for aesthetics ok so long as speech is not curbed
Aesthetics is a valid state interest. Regulating sign content may be ok if compelling gov interest.
Berman vs. Parker (1954)
Aesthetics / Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
Berman and the other appellants owned a department store in one blighted area targeted by a redevelopment commission for eminent domain and objected to the seizing of their property solely for beautification of the area.
Aesthetics is a valid public purpose.
City of Ladue vs. Gilleo (1994)
Regulation for yard and window signs prohibiting window signs violated 1st Amendment.
The Court held a “special respect” for an individual’s right to convey messages from her home.
Mugler vs. Kansas (1887)
14th Amendment. (making selling beer during prohibition)
Kansas prohibition does not infringe on Fourteenth Amendment rights. Here the state legislature may exercise its police powers.
“health, morals, and safety of a community”
Kaiser Aetna vs. US (1979)
Did the required public access to the marina joined to bay as a result of the private development of an inland lagoon necessitate the exercise of eminent domain power and payment of just compensation?
The court held that petitioner’s property had not been capable of navigation before they modified it, that it was not the sort of navigable body previously recognized as being incapable of private ownership and, therefore, petitioner’s interest was similar to that of owners of fast land adjacent to navigable water
Thus not a taking
Koontz vs. St. Johns River Water Mgt (2012)
A taking had occurred
Is the government liable for a taking when it refuses to issue a permit until the landowner has agreed to dedicate personal resources to a public use?
The Court held that the government may not conditionally approve land-use permits unless the conditions are connected to the land use and approximately proportional to the effects of the proposed land use.
