Legal cases

Question 1

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

Answer 1

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.
Fifth Amendment Cases

Question 2

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

Answer 2

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 3

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

Answer 3

The Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.
Fifth Amendment Cases

Question 4

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

Answer 4

In this case, the city had put in place a regulation that required the placement of a public park on private property, leaving no income producing use of the property. The Court invalidated the regulation, but it was not ruled as a taking that should receive compensation.
Fifth Amendment Cases

Question 5

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

Answer 5

The 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. The Court weighed the economic impact of the regulation on investment-backed expectations and the character of the regulation to determine whether the regulation deprives one of property rights.
Fifth Amendment Cases

Question 6

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

Answer 6

The appellants had acquired five acres of unimproved land for residential development. The zoning ordinance placed the appellants’ property in a zone with density restrictions (one single-family residence per acre). The appellants brought suit against the city in state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional. The Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking.
Fifth Amendment Cases

Question 7

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

Answer 7

The cable television company installed cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building and to serve other buildings. The property owner brought a class action suit claiming that allowing the cable company to occupy the land was a taking. The Court found that the government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property that therefore constituted a taking requiring just compensation.
The Fifth Amendment

Question 8

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

Answer 8

The 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. The Court found that the County could either purchase the property out-right or revoke the ordinance and pay the church for its losses during the time of the trial.
The fifth Amendment case

Question 9

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

Answer 9

Pennsylvania’s Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act prohibits coal mining that causes subsidence damage to pre-existing public buildings, dwellings, and cemeteries. The Act requires that 50 percent of the coal beneath four protected structures be kept in place to provide surface support. The Coal Association alleged that this constituted a taking. The Court found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act.
The fifth amendment case

Question 10

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

Answer 10

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.
The fifth amendment case

Question 11

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

Answer 11

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.
A fifth amendment case

Question 12

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

Answer 12

The 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). The Court found that Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place, and so the regulation constituted a taking.
A 5th amendment case

Question 13

Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994)

Answer 13

The Court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain (to create a greenway and bicycle path) by a commercial business that wanted to expand. The Court found that there was not enough of a connection between the exaction requirement and the development. Conditions that require the deeding of portions of a property to the government can be justified, but there has to be a clear relationship between the nature and extent of the proposed development. The “rough proportionality” test was created from this case: “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.”
A 5th amendment case

Question 14

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

Answer 14

The Court, in this case, was answering the question of whether an owner must attempt to sell their development rights before claiming a regulatory taking of property without just compensation. The petitioner owned an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe, and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency found that the lot could not be developed under the agencies’ regulations, but that Suitum could sell the development rights under the Transfer of Development Rights program. The Court ruled that Suitum did not have to attempt to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking suit.
A 5th amendment case

Question 15

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

Answer 15

The Supreme Court upheld a jury award of $1.45 million in favor of the development based on the city’s repeated denials of a development permit for a 190-unit residential complex on oceanfront property. The development was in conformance with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.
A 5th Amendment case

Question 16

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

Answer 16

The question before the Court was whether a property owner who acquired title to a property after regulations were in place could still bring a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment. The property owner claimed inverse condemnation against the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council because the landowner was denied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club. The Supreme Court found that acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims.
A 5th amendment case

Question 17

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

Answer 17

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed two moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comprehensive plan for the area. A group of property owners sued, claiming a taking. The Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation.
A 5th amendment case

Question 18

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

Answer 18

The 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.
A 5th amendment case

Question 19

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

Answer 19

The 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.
A 5th amendment case

Question 20

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

Answer 20

The Supreme Court ruled that economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain. The Court reasoned that it is not in a position to determine the amount or character of land needed for a particular public project.
A 5th Amendment case

Question 21

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

Answer 21

The Supreme 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 22

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

Answer 22

Mr. Koontz requested a permit from the St. John’s River Water Management to develop additional land beyond what was allowed under the original permit. St. John’s agreed to issue the development permit on the condition that Koontz deed the rest of his property into a conservation area and complete additional mitigation work. Koontz refused to undertake the mitigation work and St. John’s denied the application. The key question facing the Court was whether the government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until a landowner agrees to dedicate land for public use. The Supreme Court found in favor of Koontz, noting that there was no specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work and that a taking had occurred.
A 5th amendment case

Question 23

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

Answer 23

The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.
A first amendment case

Question 24

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

Answer 24

The Court found that commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs.
A first amendment case

Question 25

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

Answer 25

The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles. The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The Court found that aesthetics does advance a legitimate state interest. A first amendment case

Question 26

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

Answer 26

The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. The Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic and crime), not the content. The Court found that the city does not have to guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. However, the city cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment. A first amendment case

Question 27

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

Answer 27

Following the Supreme Court's ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores (see below), Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The new act declares that no government may implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution unless the government demonstrates that imposition of burden both is in furtherance of compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. This act has been challenged in several legal cases, for example in Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. the City of Chicago. In that case, the Court found that changes that the City made to their zoning ordinance brought the ordinance into compliance with RLUIPA. This act was also challenged in Cutter v. Wilkinson, U.S. Supreme Court (2005), where the Court ruled that the Act is a constitutional religious accommodation under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Question 28

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

Answer 28

The pastor of a church rented space in an elementary school and placed signs in the area announcing the time and location of the church services. Gilbert’s sign ordinance restricts the size, number, duration, and location of certain types of signs, including temporary signs. Gilbert advised the church that it had violated the sign code through the placement of the temporary signs. The church sued Gilbert claiming that the sign code violated the free speech clause in the First Amendment, as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The US Supreme 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. The Court found the sign ordinance was not content-neutral.

Question 29

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

Answer 29

The Court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. The Court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest. The Court found that the regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good. 14th Amendment case

Question 30

Mugler v. Kansas; US Supreme Court (1887)

Answer 30

The Court found that a state law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. "A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking." A 14th Amendment case

Question 31

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

Answer 31

The 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. A 14th Amendment case

Question 32

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

Answer 32

The court reviewed a zoning case that denied a rezoning of a property from single-family to multi-family. The Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC), a nonprofit developer, contracted to purchase a tract within Arlington Heights in order to build racially integrated low- and moderate-income housing. The contract was contingent upon securing rezoning as well as federal housing assistance. MHDC applied to the Village for the necessary rezoning from a single-family to a multiple-family (R-5) classification. The Village denied the rezoning request and MHDC and individual minority respondents filed suit for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that the denial was racially discriminatory and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act. The District Court held that the Village's rezoning denial was motivated not by racial discrimination but by a desire to protect property values and maintain the Village's zoning plan. Though approving those conclusions, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the "ultimate effect" of the rezoning denial was racially discriminatory and observing that the denial would disproportionately affect blacks, particularly in view of the fact that the general suburban area, though economically expanding, continued to be marked by residential segregation. The US Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Village acted in a racially discriminatory manner and overturned the findings of the previous two courts. They reprimanded to the lower court for further consideration. A 14 amendment case

Question 33

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

Answer 33

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. A 14th amendment case

Question 34

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

Answer 34

This case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The City of Boerne, Texas prohibited a church in a historic district from enlarging. The Supreme Court ruled that the act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforcement powers of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the end, the city and church came to an agreement to leave 80 percent of the church intact and allow a new 750-seat auditorium on the rear of the auditorium. A 14th amendment case

Question 35

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926)

Answer 35

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. The 10 Amendment grant States the ability to regulate behavior and enforce laws that will sustain the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people

Question 36

Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo (1972)

Answer 36

Recognized growth phasing programs as valid exercises of police power.

Question 37

City of Edmonds v. Oxford House (1995)

Answer 37

Recognizes that definitions of "family" contained in zoning ordinances that limit who may occupy a dwelling are subject to the requirements of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

Question 38

Murr v. Wisconsin (2017)

Answer 38

The issue is whether for purposes of a regulatory 'taking' analysis the focus should be on the single Lot E or both Lot E and Lot F together (that is, what is the property unit that is being taken, known as the "denominator"). The court created a three-factor test to analyze the denominator: (a) whether state and local law treats the land as a single parcel or separate parcels; (b) the physical characteristics of the property; and (c) the value of the property under the challenged regulation, with special attention to the effect of the burdened and on the value of other holdings. Created a new test to determine the property unit (the denominator) for a regulatory takings analysis.