Law Cases Only Flashcards
Significance or takeaway
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
For the first time, US Supreme Court indicated that regulation of land use, including regulation that destroys the economic value of a property, might constitute a taking.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
Established zoning as a valid exercise of police power by local government that in general does not violate the constitutional protection of the right to property.
Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo
Recognized growth phasing programs as valid exercises of police power.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (Mount Laurel I)
Formalized the concept of a regional “fair share” affordable housing burden.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York
Introduced a means-end balancing test for regulatory takings and validated historic preservation controls. Also, transfer of development rights.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
Established a high standard for aesthetic regulation of billboards by providing First Amendment protection to commercial firms that advertise goods or services not available at the location of the sign.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel (Mt. Laurel II)
Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
Created “essential nexus” takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications and exactions. There must be a strong relationship between the problem created by proposed development and the proposed exaction (or mitigation), or else compensation may be required.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principles of law; compensation to be paid to landowners when regulations deprive them of all economically beneficial land use unless uses are disallowed by title or by state background principles of private and public nuisances.
Dolan v. City of Tigard
Established a higher standard for takings by extending Nollan’s “essential nexus” test to require “rough proportionality” between development impact and conditions.
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House
Recognizes that definitions of “family” contained in zoning ordinances that limit who may occupy a dwelling are subject to the requirements of the FHA.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Recognizes that partial, temporary deprivations of property may constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, but must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis under the regulatory taking framework of Penn Central.
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.
Recognizing that regulatory takings claims that do not deprive an owner of all economically viable use of land or property must be evaluated under the factors set forth in Penn Central.
Kelo v. City of New London
Upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.
