Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

AICP > Law Cases > Flashcards

Law Cases Flashcards

1
Q

United States v Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)

A
  • 5th amendment takings case
  • Ruled acquisition of the National battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose.
  • 1st significant legal case dealing with historic preservation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon (1922)

A
  • 5th Amendment takings case
  • Found that if a regulation goes too far it is recognized as a taking
  • First takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th amendment
  • Found state significantly diminished the value of land without strong public interest
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Berman v Parker (1954)

A
  • 5th Amendment takings case
  • Held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose
  • Regarding Washington D.C. Redevelopment Act which allowed congress to use eminent domain to seize blighted property with just compensation for redevelopment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

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

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings case
  • City put a regulation that required placement of a public park on private property and left not income producing use for the property
  • The court invalidated the regulation, but it was not ruled as a taking that should receive just compensation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

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

A
  • 5th Amendment takings case
  • Found the NYC Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking
  • NYC said Penn Central could not construct a multistory office building about Grand Central Terminal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Agins v City of Tiburon (1980)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings case
  • Upheld a city’s right to zone property at low density and determined zoning was not a taking
  • Agins acquired 5 acres of land for residential development, city zoning ordinance placed them in a low density zone allowing 1SFH per acre
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Loretta v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation (1982)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings case
  • Found the government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property that therefore constituted a taking requiring just compensation
  • A cable company installed cables on a building to serve tenants and other buildings
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

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

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings case
  • 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
  • Found that the county could either purchase the property outright or revoke the ordinance and pay the church for its losses during the time of the trial
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v DeBenedictis (1987)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings case
  • Found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the act
  • Act prohibited coal mining that caused subsidence damage to pre-existing buildings, dwellings, and cemeteries. Coal association called this a taking.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

FCC v Florida Power Corporation (1987)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings case
  • Court found a taking had not occurred
  • Federal statute authorized FCC to regulate rent charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Nolan v California Coastal Commission (1987)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings case
  • Court agreed that a legitimate interest is served by maintaining a continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast but that CA must provide just compensation to beachfront property owners for the public use of land
  • CA Coastal Commission required beachfront owners obtaining building permits to maintain a pathway on their property open to the public
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings case
  • Found there is a taking of there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left) after the regulation is in place (except where derived from the state’s law of property and nuisance)
  • Lucas obtained land prior to regulations being put in place so the regulation constituted a taking
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Dolan v Tigard (1994)

A
  • 5th Amendment takings case
  • Overturned an exaction that’s required dedication of a portion of a flood plain to create a greenway and bicycle path by a commercial business that wanted to expand
  • Found there was not enough of a connection between the exaction requirement and development
  • Conditions that require the deeding of portions of a property to the government can be justified, but there needs to be a clear relationship between the nature in the extent of the proposed development
  • Created rough proportionality test
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Rough Proportionality Test

A

An exaction is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use

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

Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings Case
  • Answered the question of whether an owner must attempt to sell their development rights before claiming a regulatory taking of property without just compensation
  • Ruled you did NOT have to attempt to sell development rights before filing a regulatory taking lawsuit
  • Suitum owned an undeveloped lot next to Lake Tahoe and regulations said the lot could not be developed but that he could sell the development rights
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

City of Monterey v Dunes at Monterey Ltd (1999)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings Case
  • Found that repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land
  • Upheld a just award of over a million dollars
  • Development was in line with the city’s zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan
17
Q

Palazzolo v Rhode Island (2001)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings Case
  • Found that acquisition of title for a property after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory takings claim
  • Property owner claimed inverse condemnation against the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council because the landowner was denied a permit to fill coastal wetlands to construct a beach club
18
Q

Inverse Condemnation

A

When a government takes private property for public use that greatly damages the value of the plaintiffs property.

19
Q

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

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings Case
  • Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation
  • Regional Planning Agency placed two moratoria on development while they formulated a comprehensive plan a group of property owners claimed this was a taking
20
Q

Lingle v Chevron USA (2005)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings Case
  • Overturned a portion of Agins v City of Tiburon declaring that regulation of property does effect a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests.
  • Court found that takings challenges had to be based on severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation on dirt thing the governmental interest
21
Q

City of Rachel Palos Verdes v Abrams (2005)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings Case
  • Ruled a licensed radio operator that was denied a CUP for an antenna could not seek damages because it could distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
22
Q

Kelp v City of New London (2005)

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings Case
  • Ruled economic development, even if it involves taking land for private use, is a valid use of eminent domain
  • Court reasoned it was not in a position to determine the amount or character of land needed for a particular public project
23
Q

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

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings Case
  • Ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation
24
Q

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

A
  • 5th Amendment Takings Case
  • Found a taking had occurred as there was no specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work that was a condition of his permit
  • Koontz requested a permit to develop land beyond his original permit and St. John’s made the approval conditional on Koontz deeding the rest of his property into a conservation area and completing additional mitigation work
25
Q

Munn v Illinois (1876)

A
  • 14th Amendment Case
  • Found that a state law regulating pricing was not a taking or violation of due process
  • Established the principle of public regulation of private business in the public interest
  • Regulation if private property does not violate dude process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good
26
Q

Mugler v Kansas (1887)

A
  • 14th Amendment Case

- Found that a state law prohibiting liquor sales was not a taking and did not violate due process

27
Q

Village of Belle Terri v Boaraas (1974)

A
  • 14th Amendment Case
  • Court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single family
  • Found that a community has the power to control lifestyles and values
  • Extended the power of zoning under the police power to include a community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles
28
Q

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

A
  • 14th Amendment Case
  • Found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the village acted in a racially discriminatory manner
  • Housing Corp applied for a rezoning for low to moderate income racially integrated housing, the rezone was denied by Arlington Heights PC
  • Housing Corp sued alleging the denial was racially discriminatory
29
Q

Southern Burlington County NAACP V Township of Mount Laurel (1975)

A
  • 14th Amendment Case
  • Found Mt. Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing
  • Required the town to open its doors to all income levels
30
Q

City of Boerne v Flores (1997)

A
  • 14th Amendment Case
  • Found the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power that exceeded the enforcement powers of the 14th Amendment
  • City of Boerne prohibited a church in a Historic District from enlarging
31
Q

State police power comes from

A

The 10th Amendment which gives states rights and powers not delegated the US

32
Q

Dillions Rule

A

Local governments possess only the powers specifically delegated to them by state law or fairly imposed from expressly granted powers

39 states employ this

33
Q

Home Rule

A

Cuties have the right to develop their own regulations, except where the state has specifically stated otherwise

34
Q

Before comprehensive zoning, regulation of land use was based on

A

Nuisance Laws

35
Q

Welch v Swasey (1909)

A
  • Zoning Law
  • Est rights of cities to regulate building heights
  • Found to be a valid use of police power and did not violate 14th Amendment
36
Q

Eubank v City of Richmond (1912)

A
  • Zoning Law
  • Regarding state statute allowing establishment of building lines
  • Ordinance allowed owners of 2/3’s the land abutting any street to request a building line
  • Court struck down ordinance as it didn’t like the delegation of this authority to citizens
  • Building lines were found as a valid use of the police power
37
Q

Hadacheck v Sebastian (1915)

A
  • Zoning Law
  • Approved the regulation and location land uses
  • Zoning ordinance in LA limited location of brick production and was not in violation of the 14th Amendment
38
Q

Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty Co (1926)

A
  • Zoning Law
  • Found as long as a community believed there was a threat of nuisance, the zoning ordinance shall be upheld
  • Court upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power
  • 14th Amendment not violated
  • Alfred Bettman filed influential brief
39
Q

Newtow v City of Cambridge (1928)

A
  • Zoning Law
  • Struck down a zoning ordinance because it has no valid public purpose (to promote health, safety, morals, or welfare of public)
  • Court ruled it was a due process violation

AICP (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions