Law Cases

Question 1

Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909)

Answer 1

established the right of municipalities to regulate building height.

A building height limitation of 80 to 100 feet does not deprive the property owner of profitable use

Question 2

Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912)

Answer 2

established the right of municipalities to establish building lines

Setbacks are constitutional

Question 3

Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915)

Answer 3

established the regulation of the location of land uses- zoning ordinance in LA did not violate the 14th.

Question 4

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926)

Answer 4

upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power

Upheld zoning classifications if classifications were reasonable

Question 5

Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928)

Answer 5

the court struck a zoning ordinance because it had no valid purpose. Was a violation of the 14th.

Question 6

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972)

Answer 6

upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public facilities

Local governments can condition development approval on the provision of services

Question 7

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975)

Answer 7

upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued

Question 8

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976)

Answer 8

upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.

Court allowed time phasing of future residential growth until performance conditions were met

Question 9

Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013)

Answer 9

When the railroad company abandons the land, it should be settled as an easement and if the easement is abandoned, the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.

Question 10

Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 11

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

Question 12

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

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

Answer 13

The Court held that Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act. The result is that policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violate the Fair Housing Act.

Question 14

Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1976)

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981)

Answer 15

If an ordinance places tighter restrictions on non-commercial billboards than on commercial ones it violates the First Amendment

Question 16

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court (1984)

Answer 16

The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles.

Aesthetics can satisfy advancing a legitimate public interest

Question 17

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986)

Answer 17

Distance separation or concentration requirements for adult uses is OK if the regulation serves a substantial governmental interest and leaves open alternative methods of communication

The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district.

Question 18

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

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; U.S. Supreme Court (1896)

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (1922)

Answer 20

Restrictions on use are not a taking provided they do not go too far.

Involved regulatory takings.

The Court found that if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. This was the first takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th Amendment.

Question 21

Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954)

Answer 21

Aesthetics is a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.

Question 22

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978)

Answer 22

Restrictions on use are legal as long as there is still some commercial value

Court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking. The Court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.

Question 23

Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980)

Answer 23

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

Two prong test – A taking if: (i) does not substantially forward state interest or (ii) denies owner an economically viable use of their land

Question 24

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982)

Answer 24

Court found that the government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property that therefore constituted a taking requiring just compensation.

Question 25

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 25

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

Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking.

Question 26

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 26

Court found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act.

Nature of state’s interest in regulation is a critical factor in determining whether a taking has occurred

Question 27

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 27

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. The Court found that a taking had not occurred.

Question 28

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 28

Must be a nexus between state’s interest and exaction

The question before the Court was whether the California Coastal Commission’s requirement that owners of beachfront property seeking a building permit need to maintain beachfront access constitutes a property taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court agreed that a legitimate interest is served by maintaining a “continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast,” but that California must provide just compensation to beachfront property owners for the public use of their land.

Question 29

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992)

Answer 29

Restrictions on use must show nexus to nuisance

Court found that there is a taking if 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).

Question 30

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; U.S. Supreme Court (1997)

Answer 30

Property owners need not sell their developmental rights before claiming the regulatory taking of property

Question 31

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; U.S. Supreme Court (1999)

Answer 31

court found the repeated denials of permits that were in conformance with city’s comp plan and zoning ordinance deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.

Question 32

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001)

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; U.S. Supreme Court (2002)

Answer 33

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

A three-year government moratorium on development is not a ‘taking’ of private property that requires payment of compensation

Question 34

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)

Answer 34

Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent (see above) declaring that regulation of property does effect a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. 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.

Question 35

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court (2005)

Answer 36

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

Question 37

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

Answer 37

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).

Question 38

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

Answer 38

Court ruled that there was no specific regulation requiring the dedication of of private land for public use and mitigation work, and that a taking had occured

Question 39

Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court (1876)

Answer 39

established the principle of public regulation of private business in the public interest. The regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good

Question 40

Mugler v. Kansas; US Supreme Court (1887)

Answer 40

Court found that a state law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process.

Court validated state and local government actions that properly protect the public health, morals, and safety

Question 41

Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court (1974)

Answer 41

Court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single-family. The court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values. The Court thus extended the concept of zoning under the police power to include a community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles.

Question 42

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court (1977)

Answer 42

Equal Protection.
Regulation effectively denying housing to people based on race, immigration status or national origin is unconstitutional

Question 43

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

Answer 43

Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of the region’s growth (New Jersey)

Regulations do not prevent a jurisdiction’s achieving a fair share of regional growth, but affirmative measures should be used to ensure that a fair share goal is reached

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.

Question 44

City of Boerne v. Flores; U.S. Supreme Court (1997)

Answer 44

challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Question 45

Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976)

Answer 45

Communities can zone for location of adult entertainment establishments without necessarily violating the First Amendment

Question 46

Bove v Donner-Hanna Coke Corp (1932)

Answer 46

Owner not permitted to make an unreasonable use of premises to the material annoyance of a neighbor, if the latter’s enjoyment of life or property is materially lessened

Question 47

Calvert Cliffs v. U.S. Atomic Enegry Commission 1971

Answer 47

Overturned approval of nuclear plant because the AEC did not follow NEPA; gave NEPA strength

Question 48

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

Answer 48

Communities can restrict the number of building permits granted each year if reasonable

Question 49

Cohen v. Des Plains (1990)

Answer 49

Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments; Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn’t

Question 50

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

Answer 50

Cities cannot define “family” so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other

Question 51

Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)

Answer 51

The restriction of uses is not a taking

Question 52

Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)

Answer 52

Required a reasonable relationship between conditions and impact