Law - Court Cases Flashcards
Agnis v City of Tiburon (1980)
Court found that city’s decision to zone land with density restrictions was lawful use of police power and was not a taking. Established rule of allowing regulations that “substantially advance legitimate state interests,” overruled in Lingle v Chevron (2005)
Pennsylvania Coal Co. vs. Mahon (1922)
A land use restriction constituted a taking if it “went too far” – held that law prohibiting removal of subsurface coal effected a taking.
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v DeBenedictis (1987)
Court ruled, contra Mahon, that act that prohibits coal mining that could cause subsidence damage (requires maintenance of 50 percent of coal beneath protected structures) was not a taking and was justified by public interest.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v City of New York (1978)
New York’s landmark preservation law, as applied to Grand Central Station, is not a taking.
Court: Taking based on 1) extent of diminution of value, 2) interference with investment-backed expectations, and 3) the character of the government action. Here, where interior of property can be used, and development rights could be transferred, determined not to be a taking.
First English Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles (1987)
Church had a property inside LA National Forest. Gov. enacted law against building in flood plain. Court found that a temporary ban on development could constitute a taking even if it was temporary and remanded for further proceedings.
Nollan v. California Coastal Council (1987)
California required a dedication of a strip of land along the beach to allow the public the right of access along the beach. The Court found that this constituted a taking due to the lack of nexus between the proffered condition and the building regulation, and required compensation.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
“Total takings” tests, two prongs: 1) permanent physical invasion of property; 2) regulations deny the property owner of all ‘economically viable use of his land. If a regulation prevents a nuisance as defined by state law, it is not a taking.
South Carolina Coastal Council drew “setback lines” along the coast, including on Lucas’s properties. Lucas could no longer build permanent structures. He sued the council, claiming that the state’s 1988 Beachfront Management Act took his property without compensating him.
Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)
Dolan sought a permit to expand a retail store and paved parking lot. The city conditioned the permit on a dedication of land for use as a public greenway to minimize flooding and as a bike and walking path to reduce street traffic.
Supreme Court denied and determined it was a taking: Established a rule that benefit of the dedication must be roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the proposed development.
City of Los Angeles vs. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)
Upheld regulation prohibiting attaching signs to utility poles because it did not attempt to regulate the content of the sign; aesthetics is a legitimate state interest
Berman v Parker (1954)
City of Los Angeles vs. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)
Upheld regulation prohibiting attaching signs to utility poles because it did not attempt to regulate the content of the sign; aesthetics is a legitimate state interest
Berman v Parker (1954)
Court found that aesthetics is a valid public purpose, and acquisition of property to clear blight and redevelop slums (even if property is non-deteriorated) is a valid public purpose. The Court added that legislative declaration of the public interest is “well-nigh conclusive.”
(The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act (1945) created a program to redevelop substandard housing and blighted areas in Washington, D.C. The Act created the Redevelopment Land Agency. This Act had the power of eminent domain to acquire real property as part of the redevelopment program. Berman, the owner of a department store, argued that the government could not acquire his property through eminent domain because the property would be redeveloped for private use and therefore violate the requirement in the Takings Clause that any taking be for a public use. The Court held that the redevelopment of the District of Columbia was a public purpose for which the United States could properly exercise its power of eminent domain.)
Metromedia Inc. v City of San Diego (1981)
Supreme Court found that billboards could be regulated but that commercial outdoor advertising could not be treated differently from noncommercial messages
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)
Found unconstitutional city law that wholly restricted lawn signs
Village of Belle Terre v. Borass (1974)
Found constitutional a law that limited number of unrelated people that can live in a house together (2 maximum); community can control lifestyle and values through zoning
City of Edmonds v Oxford House Inc (1995)
Group homes & definition of family; Court rules that Edmonds’ family composition rule is not a maximum occupancy restriction, and thus may run afoul of Fair Housing Act
Golden v Town of Ramapo (1972)
Growth Management. NY Court upheld growth management system limiting development based on availability of utilities, drainage facilities, parks, roads, etc.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v City of Petaluma (1975)
Appeals court upheld a city quota on the annual number of building permits issued
