Law Quiz

Question 1

Welsh v. Swasey (1909) concluded what about regulating construction?

a. Zoning can be used to strengthen a church’s ability to provide needed community services

b. Building height limitations are unconstitutional if there is no comprehensive plan in place

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

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

Answer 1

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

Question 2

In Berman v. Parker (1954), the court declared which of the following?

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

b. Aesthetics is a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare

c. Aesthetics alone can not be used to support eminent domain

d. Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose

Answer 2

Aesthetics is a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare

Question 3

Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976) did which of the following?

a. Communities can created zones for unwanted uses but only if states consider this a valid use of the police power

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

c. Distance requirements for adult uses must serve local interests

d. Upheld power to prohibit more than two unrelated individuals from residing together as a single family; thus extended concept of zoning under police power to include community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles

Answer 3

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

Question 4

The verdict of the Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Development Corp (1977) concluded which of the following?

a. Law that required affordable housing subsidy

b. Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of the region’s growth

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

d. Regulation can not discriminate based on race, immigration status or national origin

Answer 4

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

Question 5

In the 1932 case Bove v Donner-Hanna Coke Corp., the courts declared:

a. 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

b. Material annoyance of a neighbor can not be used as a basis of legal action

c. Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking

d. If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking

Answer 5

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 6

In the 1987 case Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, the Supreme Court came to which of the following conclusions?

a. Must be a nexus between state’s interest and exaction

b. Land use exactions are not authorized by the constitution

c. Aesthetics can satisfy advancing a legitimate public interest

d. State interest is not a valid factor in determining whether a taking has occurred

Answer 6

Must be a nexus between state’s interest and exaction

Question 7

The court decision Calvert Cliffs v. U.S. Atomic Enegry Commission 1971:

a. Declared that state interest is not a valid factor in determining whether a taking has occurred

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

c. Weakened NEPA because it required governmental burden of proof

d. Created a nexus between state’s interest and exaction

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) determined that:

a. Privacy intrusion should be considered a taking if it involve local government actions

b. State interest is not a valid factor in determining whether a taking has occurred

c. Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated

d. If regulation causes a physical invasion of privacy then it is a taking

Answer 8

If regulation causes a physical invasion of privacy then it is a taking

Question 9

Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma (1975) saw the court reach which of the following conclusions?

a. Required a reasonable relationship between conditions and impact

b. Required a reasonable relationship between impact and expenditure

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

d. Communities can restrict the number of building permits granted each year through the power of eminent domain

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Metromedia v. City of San Diego (1981) decided which of the following?

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

b. If an ordinance places tighter restrictions on non-commercial billboards than on commercial ones it is likely not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

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

d. Distance requirements for adult uses must serve local interests

Answer 10

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

Question 11

First English Evangelical Lutheran Free Church v. County of Los Angeles (1987) decided the following about takings:

a. Forgiveness of legal fees is valid compensation for a temporary taking

b. Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated

c. Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking

d. Development moratoriums should be considered a taking unless there is compensation

Answer 11

Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking

Question 12

In 1990, the Supreme Court verdict for the case Cohen v. Des Plains concluded which of the following?

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

b. Building height limitations are unconstitutional if there is no comprehensive plan in place

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

d. Zoning can be used to strengthen a church’s ability to provide needed community services

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) concluded that:

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

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

c. Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose

d. Local governments have the power to determine “family” definition and how it is applied in a zoning ordinance

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore (1976) declared that:

a. Regulations that prevent a jurisdiction’s achieving regional growth must require fair share apportionment

b. Required a reasonable relationship between conditions and impact

c. Phased residential growth can not be tied to performance criteria unless permitted by state legislation

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

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Which of the following conclusions did Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) come to about takings?

a. Use restrictions are an unconstitutional use of the police power

b. The restriction of uses is not a taking

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

d. Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking

Answer 15

The restriction of uses is not a taking

Question 16

The 1987 court case Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictus concluded…

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

b. Distance requirements for adult uses must serve local interests

c. If regulation causes a physical invasion of privacy then it is a taking

d. State interest is not a valid factor in determining whether a taking has occurred

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (I) (1972) concluded which of the following?

a. Regulation can not discriminate based on race, immigration status or national origin

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

c. New Jersey law that required affordable housing subsidy

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

Answer 17

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

Question 18

The Supreme Court decided which of the following in the case Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)?

a. Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose

b. Zoning ordinance was upheld but only if owners were properly compensated

c. Aesthetics is a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare

d. Upheld zoning classifications only if authorized by state

Answer 18

Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose

Question 19

Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922) concluded that:

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

b. Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated

c. If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking

d. Use restrictions are an unconstitutional use of the police power

Answer 19

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

Question 20

The court case Mugler v. Kansas (1887) determined:

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

b. Aesthetics is a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare

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

d. Court validated state and local government ability to implement zoning regulations

Answer 20

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

Question 21

In 1972, the courts decided that _______ in the case: Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo.

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

b. Local governments can condition development approval on the provision of services

c. Zoning can be used to strengthen a church’s ability to provide needed community services

d. Local governments can not penalize development in an effort to provide revenue for services

Answer 21

Local governments can condition development approval on the provision of services

Question 22

In Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997), it was decided that:

a. Zoning ordinance was upheld but only if owners were properly compensated

b. Court validated state and local government ability to implement zoning regulations

c. If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking

d. Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking

Answer 22

Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking

Question 23

In 1986, the case Renton v. Playtime Theaters Inc. helped the courts determine that:

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

b. Aesthetics can satisfy advancing a legitimate public interest

c. 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

d. Distance requirements for adult uses must serve local interests

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) concluded which of the following?

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

b. Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated

c. If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking

d. Land use exactions are not authorized by the constitution

Answer 24

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

Question 25

In the 1912 court decision Eubank v. City of Richmond declared what about government control over land use?

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

b. Land use exactions are not authorized by the constitution

c. Setbacks are constitutional

d. The restriction of uses is not a taking

Answer 25

Setbacks are constitutional

Question 26

In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), which of the following decisions was reached?

a. Use restrictions are an unconstitutional use of the police power

b. Use restrictions should not be tied to nuisance claims

c. Restrictions on use must show nexus to nuisance

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

Answer 26

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

Question 27

First English Evangelical Lutheran Free Church v. County of Los Angeles (1987) decided the following about takings:

a. Forgiveness of legal fees is valid compensation for a temporary taking

b. Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated

c. Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking

d. Development moratoriums should be considered a taking unless there is compensation

Answer 27

Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking

Question 28

In 1990, the Supreme Court verdict for the case Cohen v. Des Plains concluded which of the following?

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

b. Building height limitations are unconstitutional if there is no comprehensive plan in place

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

d. Zoning can be used to strengthen a church’s ability to provide needed community services

Answer 28

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

Question 29

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) concluded that:

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

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

c. Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose

d. Local governments have the power to determine “family” definition and how it is applied in a zoning ordinance

Answer 29

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

Question 30

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore (1976) declared that:

a. Regulations that prevent a jurisdiction’s achieving regional growth must require fair share apportionment

b. Required a reasonable relationship between conditions and impact

c. Phased residential growth can not be tied to performance criteria unless permitted by state legislation

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

Answer 30

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

Question 31

Which of the following conclusions did Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) come to about takings?

a. Use restrictions are an unconstitutional use of the police power

b. The restriction of uses is not a taking

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

d. Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking

Answer 31

The restriction of uses is not a taking

Question 32

The 1987 court case Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictus concluded…

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

b. Distance requirements for adult uses must serve local interests

c. If regulation causes a physical invasion of privacy then it is a taking

d. State interest is not a valid factor in determining whether a taking has occurred

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (I) (1972) concluded which of the following?

a. Regulation can not discriminate based on race, immigration status or national origin

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

c. New Jersey law that required affordable housing subsidy

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

Answer 33

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

Question 34

The Supreme Court decided which of the following in the case Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)?

a. Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose

b. Zoning ordinance was upheld but only if owners were properly compensated

c. Aesthetics is a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare

d. Upheld zoning classifications only if authorized by state

Answer 34

Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose

Question 35

Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922) concluded that:

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

b. Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated

c. If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking

d. Use restrictions are an unconstitutional use of the police power

Answer 35

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

Question 36

The court case Mugler v. Kansas (1887) determined:

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

b. Aesthetics is a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare

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

d. Court validated state and local government ability to implement zoning regulations

Answer 36

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

Question 37

In 1972, the courts decided that _______ in the case: Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo.

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

b. Local governments can condition development approval on the provision of services

c. Zoning can be used to strengthen a church’s ability to provide needed community services

d. Local governments can not penalize development in an effort to provide revenue for services

Answer 37

Local governments can condition development approval on the provision of services

Question 38

In Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997), it was decided that:

a. Zoning ordinance was upheld but only if owners were properly compensated

b. Court validated state and local government ability to implement zoning regulations

c. If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking

d. Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking

Answer 38

Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking

Question 39

In 1986, the case Renton v. Playtime Theaters Inc. helped the courts determine that:

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

b. Aesthetics can satisfy advancing a legitimate public interest

c. 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

d. Distance requirements for adult uses must serve local interests

Answer 39

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

Question 40

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) concluded which of the following?

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

b. Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated

c. If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking

d. Land use exactions are not authorized by the constitution

Answer 40

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

Question 41

In the 1912 court decision Eubank v. City of Richmond declared what about government control over land use?

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

b. Land use exactions are not authorized by the constitution

c. Setbacks are constitutional

d. The restriction of uses is not a taking

Answer 41

Setbacks are constitutional

Question 42

In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), which of the following decisions was reached?

a. Use restrictions are an unconstitutional use of the police power

b. Use restrictions should not be tied to nuisance claims

c. Restrictions on use must show nexus to nuisance

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

Answer 42

Restrictions on use must show nexus to nuisance

Question 43

According to Sultum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997), which of the following can be said for takings?

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

b. If regulation causes a physical invasion of privacy then it is a taking

c. If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking

d. Ripe for adjudication’ laws can not be used to claim regulatory taking

Answer 43

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

Question 44

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) concluded the following about takings:

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

b. Development moratoriums should be considered a taking unless there is compensation

c. Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated

d. Forgiveness of legal fees is valid compensation for a temporary taking

Answer 44

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

Question 45

Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) declared which of the following?

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

b. Required a reasonable relationship between conditions and impact

c. Required a reasonable relationship between impact and expenditure

d. Zoning can be used to strengthen a church’s ability to provide needed community services

Answer 45

Required a reasonable relationship between conditions and impact

Question 46

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (II) (1983) saw the court reaching which conclusion?

a. Regulations that prevent a jurisdiction’s achieving regional growth must require fair share apportionment

b. Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of the region’s growth

c. 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

d. Regulation can not discriminate based on race, immigration status or national origin

Answer 46

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

Question 47

Agins v. City of Tiburon (1979) decided which of the following?

a. Two prong test – A taking if: (i) substantially forwards state interest or (ii) places a moratorium on development of the property

b. Forgiveness of legal fees is valid compensation for a temporary taking

c. Local governments can condition development approval on the provision of services

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

Answer 47

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 48

The case Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (1974) ended with the courts deciding that:

a. Upheld zoning classifications only if authorized by state

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

c. Upheld zoning classifications if classifications were reasonable

d. Upheld power to prohibit more than two unrelated individuals from residing together as a single family; thus extended concept of zoning under police power to include community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles

Answer 48

Upheld power to prohibit more than two unrelated individuals from residing together as a single family; thus extended concept of zoning under police power to include community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles

Question 49

Members of City Council v. Vincent determined which of the following?

a. Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose

b. Aesthetics can satisfy advancing a legitimate public interest

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

d. Aesthetics alone is not a valid justification for zoning regulation

Answer 49

Aesthetics can satisfy advancing a legitimate public interest

Question 50

In 1926, the case Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty:

a.
Upheld zoning ordinance but only if owners were properly compensated

b. Upheld zoning classifications only if authorized by state

c. Upheld zoning classifications if classifications were reasonable

d. Upheld power to prohibit more than two unrelated individuals from residing together as a single family; thus extended concept of zoning under police power to include community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles

Answer 50

Upheld zoning classifications if classifications were reasonable