Law Cases

Question 1

The Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking.

Answer 1

Agnis v. City of Tiburon (1980)

Question 2

The Court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain. The “rough proportionality” test was created from this case.

Answer 2

Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)

Question 3

The Court found that commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs.

Answer 3

Metromedia Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981)

Question 4

The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses. The court found that a zoning ordinance in Los Angeles that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Answer 4

Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)

Question 5

Upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. The Court found that the Village of Euclid’s zoning ordinance did not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.

Answer 5

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1926)

Question 6

Two years after Euclid v. Ambler, the U.S. Supreme Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance stating it had no valid public purpose and was a violation of due process. The decision established limitations on zoning.

Answer 6

Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)

Question 7

The Court found that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.

Answer 7

Rapanos v. United States (2006)

Question 8

The Court found that if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. This ruling was the first to define a “taking” under the 5th Amendment.

Answer 8

Pennsylvania Coal Co. vs. Mahon (1922)

Question 9

The Court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law as applied to Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking.

Answer 9

Penn Central Transportation Co. v City of New York (1978)

Question 10

The Court found that if a property is unusable for a period of time, then not only can the ordinance be set aside, but the property owner can subject the government to pay for damages.

Answer 10

First English Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles (1987)

Question 11

The U. S. Supreme Court held that the Nollans’ request to rebuild their home did not further the government’s interest in overcoming a perceived psychological barrier to using the beach, and the condition was a regulatory taking without compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Answer 11

Nollan v. California Coastal Council (1987)

Question 12

The Court found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value after the regulation is in place. The Court found that Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place, and so the regulation constituted a taking.

Answer 12

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

Question 13

The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign. The Court found that aesthetics does advance a legitimate state interest.

Answer 13

City of Los Angeles vs. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)

Question 14

The Court upheld that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.

Answer 14

Berman v. Parker (1954)

Question 15

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city’s law prohibiting a window sign was a violaton of free speech under the First Amendment.

Answer 15

City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)

Question 16

The Court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single-family. The Court thus extended the concept of zoning to include a community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles.

Answer 16

Village of Belle Terre v. Borass (1974)

Question 17

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the city’s zoning definition of “family,” which excluded a group home, violated the Fair Housing Act.

Answer 17

City of Edmonds v. Oxford House Inc. (1995)

Question 18

The Court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses.

Answer 18

Golden v. Town of Ramapo (1972)

Question 19

The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.

Answer 19

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma (1975)

Question 20

The Court upheld a city ordinance that prohibited the issuance of new residential building permits until the sewage disposal, water supply, and local education facilities were in compliance with specified standards.

Answer 20

Associated Home Builders of East Bay v. City of Livermore (1976)

Question 21

The Court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking and violation of due process, establishing the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest.

Answer 21

Munn v. Illinois (1876)

Question 22

The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height.

Answer 22

Welch vs. Swasey (1909)

Question 23

The Supreme Court found the specific statute regulating building lines (setbacks) in this case was an unreasonable exercise of the police power. However, the decision did not suggest that states and municipalities lacked the power to establish building lines.

Answer 23

Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912)

Question 24

“The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit. “

Answer 24

Young v. American Minitheatres (1972)

Question 25

The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. The Court found that the city does not have to guarantee that there is land available for the use, but it cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment.

Answer 25

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc. (1986)

Question 26

Public utilities challenged a federal statue that authorized the FCC to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles. The Court found that a taking had not occurred.

Answer 26

Federal Communications Commission v. Florida Power Corporation (1987)

Question 27

The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Answer 27

Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (2006)

Question 28

The Court found that when an easement is abandoned (in this case, an easement for a railroad ROW), the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.

Answer 28

Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States (2013)

Question 29

The first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation. The Court ruled that the acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose.

Answer 29

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)

Question 30

The Court upheld that the Snail Darter is protected by the Endangered Species Act and a dam project could be blocked, even though Congress continued to fund the dam and stated that it should be completed.

Answer 30

TVA vs. Hill (1978)

Question 31

East Cleveland’s housing ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. The Court held that the ordinance violated Moore’s rights as it constituted “intrusive regulation of the family” without accruing some tangible state interest.

Answer 31

Moore vs. City of East Cleveland (1977)

Question 32

The Court affirmed that the feedlots next to Sun City retirement community were both a public and private nuisance. However, the developer, having brought people to the nuisance, was required to indemnify (compensate) Spur Industries for the costs of relocating or shutting down the feedlots.

Answer 32

Spur Industries v. Webb Dev. Company (1972)

Question 33

The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing. The Court required the town to open its doors to those of all income levels.

Answer 33

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975)

Question 34

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association

Answer 34

First Amendment

Question 35

Just compensation for takings

Answer 35

Fifth Amendment

Question 36

Due process, substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection.

Answer 36

Fourteenth Amendment

Question 37

The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases.

Answer 37

Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc. (2006)

Question 38

The Court held that policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violate the Fair Housing Act.

Answer 38

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc. (2015)

Question 39

The Act declares that governments can not implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on religious assembly unless the government demonstrates a compelling government interest.

Answer 39

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA)

Question 40

The Court ruled that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 is a constitutional religious accommodation under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause

Answer 40

Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)

Question 41

The US Supreme Court found that the city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages. The Court found the sign ordinance was not content-neutral.

Answer 41

Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014)

Question 42

A city regulation required the placement of a public park on private property, leaving no income producing use of the property. The Court invalidated the regulation, but it was not ruled as a taking that should receive compensation.

Answer 42

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York; New York Court of Appeals (1976)

Question 43

A cable television company’s cable installation constituted a taking requiring just compensation.

Answer 43

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation (1982)

Question 44

The Court found that the enactment of regulations requiring coal companies to maintain surface support for dwellings did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act.

Answer 44

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis (1987)

Question 45

The Court ruled that Suitum did not have to attempt to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking suit.

Answer 45

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997)

Question 46

The Court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.

Answer 46

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd. (1999)

Question 47

The Court found that acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims.

Answer 47

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

Question 48

The Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation.

Answer 48

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al. (2002)

Question 49

The Court found that Takings clause challenges had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furthering the governmental interest.

Answer 49

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc. (2005)

Question 50

The Court ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Answer 50

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005)

Question 51

The Court ruled that economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain.

Answer 51

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Question 52

The Court ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation (in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).

Answer 52

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)

Question 53

The Court found that there was no specific regulation requiring mitigation work to get a permit, and that a taking had occurred.

Answer 53

Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management (2012)

Question 54

An affordable housing developer was denied a rezoning of a property from single-family to multi-family. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Village acted in a racially discriminatory manner.

Answer 54

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977)

Question 55

This case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court ruled that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers.

Answer 55

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Question 56

A Kansas law prohibited the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor. Mugler was arrested for making and selling beer. This case was decided together with Kansas v. Ziebold. Mugler v. Kansas was an important step toward the Court’s acceptance of economic due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Mugler denied that the police power was so broad to prohibit the manufacture of beer for Mugler’s private consumption or for sale outside Kansas. The state law, therefore, deprived Mugler of property without due process.

Answer 56

Mugler v. Kansas (1887)

Question 57

The Court ruled that the Government could not require public access without invoking eminent domain and paying just compensation.

Answer 57

Kaiser Aetna v. United States (1979)