Legal Cases Flashcards
Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980)
Fifth Amendment “Advances a legitimate state interest” The Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined this zoning was not a taking. The appellants had acquired five acres of unimproved land for residential development. The City adopted zoning ordinances that placed the appellants’ property in a zone where property may be devoted to one-family dwellings, with density restrictions permitting appellants to build between one and five single-family residences on their tract. Without having sought approval for development of their tract under the ordinances, 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 “advances legitimate state interest” prong is overturned in Lingle v. Chevron. U.S. Supreme Court ruled that open space requirements established by the City of Tiburon did not result in a taking of property; Established the principle that a governmental action was not a regulatory taking if it substantially advanced a legitimate gov
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976)
Growth Management The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits. The California Supreme Court upheld the right of a city to time the phasing of development, contingent on performance standards being met
Austin v. Older
Gas station built on property day before property zoned Residential by city initiated zoning ordinance. 10 years later when property owner tries to remodel gas station, is denied permit because zoning doesn’t match use. Supreme Court found the denial constitutional even if the inability to expand causes loss of business
Babbit v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1996)
U.S. Supreme Court decided that the government can restrict land development to protect endangered species and their habitats, and it does not constitute a taking; Harm includes significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures wildlife
Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954)
Fifth Amendment The court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The court found that urban renewal was a valid public purpose. Eminent domain, Department store, Established aesthetics and redevelopment as a valid purpose for exercising eminent domain; Public ownership of land not the sole way to promote public purpose;
Buchanan v. Warley (1917)*
Louisville had an ordinance that prohibited blacks from living on a block where the majority of residents were white. Since 8 of 10 houses were occupied by whites, Warley was not allowed to live on the block. SC ruled that state regulations cannot discriminate on race. Violation of equal protections clause (14th Amendment)
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York
Supreme Court found a regulation prohibiting an electric company from advertising the use of electricity violation of 2nd amendment.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Supreme Court interprets Clean Air Act allowing EPA and point source contributors to calculate emissions based on “bubble” of multiple contributors rather than as individual contributors.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
Sued to prevent building highway through a park. Supreme Court ruled that agencies have limits on discretionary powers and lower courts had to review more documentation to make decision.
City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)
US Supreme Court ruled that LA violated free speech by banning noncommercial signage on public property
City of Boerne v. Flores; U.S. Supreme Court (1997)
Fourteenth Amendment 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 is 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.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.*
Denial of a care home for “mentally-retarded” unconstitutional under 14th equal protection clause
City of Ladue v. Gilleo*
Property owner placed yard signs with political message. City ordinance prohibited personal yard signs of all content. Supreme Court found unconstitutional because it eliminated entire form of free speech. Freedom of speech; City could not ban posting a non-commercial window sign in own residence (anti-gulf war sign)
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; U.S. Supreme Court (1999)
Fifth Amendment 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 ocean front 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.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)
Fifth Amendment The Court ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied conditional use permit for an antenna cannot seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986)
First Amendment 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. The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. US Supreme Court upheld zoning ordinance that prohibited adult theaters with 1K ft of residence etc bc it did not violate free speech bc it didn’t altogether prohibit use in city
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975)
Growth Management The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued. Limit on the number of building permits for single-family homes issued each year; upheld by court of appeals on ground that it sought to preserve small town character and open space and promote growth at an “orderly” rate”
Dolan v City of Tigard (1994)
Fifth Amendment “Rough Proportionality Test” The Court found there must be a rational nexus between the exaction requirement and the development. The rough proportionality test was created from this case. The court found that conditions that require the deeding of portions of a property to the government can be justified where there is a relationship between the nature and extent of the proposed development. The court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of the floodplain by a commercial business that wanted to expand. In the Dolan v. City of Tigard case, the court found that the exaction on a property must be roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed land development.. US Supreme Court, Takings, commission required Dolan to maintain greenway on hardware store property; Ruling in favor of Dolan, established principle of rational nexus for regulatory action
EPCRA (1986)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act . Companion legislation to SARA (Title III). Requires each state to establish State Emergency Response Commission for directing emergency planning and reporting of chemicals
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912)
Zoning The Court first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case. The state had a statute authorizing cities and towns, among other things, ‘to make regulations concerning the building of houses in the city or town, and in their discretion, . . . in particular districts or along particular streets, to prescribe and establish building lines, or to require property owners in certain localities or districts to leave a certain percentage of lots free from buildings and to regulate the height of buildings.’ The court held that the ordinance was a valid use of police power.
Euclid v Ambler (1926)
US Supreme Court upheld validity of zoning as a legitimate exercise of policy power, and emphasized the need to separate land uses, in order to protect public health, safety and welfare; established zoning as a legitimate exercise of police power by local
Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners (1973)*
SPOT ZONING or zoning changes without supporting evidence such as comp plan are unconstitutional.
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
Fifth Amendment The Court found that a taking had not occurred. The 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.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v County of Los Angeles (1987)
Fifth Amendment 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.. Flood damaged campgrounds, and LA prohibited construction in flood area; U.S. Supreme Court found that just compensation required for “temporary damages” for time btwn law adoption and determination of unconstitutional taking
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York (1976)
Transfer of Development Rights. Fifth Amendment 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.
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo (1972)
Growth Management The court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. A proposal would only be approved upon reaching a certain point level. Developers could increase their point total by providing the involved facilities themselves.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915)
Zoning The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses. The court found that a zoning ordinance in Los Angeles that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. US Supreme county ruled that restricting certain nuisances land uses was a legitimate exercise of police power; Upheld ordinance in LA prohibiting operation of brickyard
Hills v. Gautreaux
Chicago Housing Authority found to have engaged in discriminatory practices by not building affordable housing in white neighborhoods. Significant in that it was accepted into evidence that housing vouchers provided better economic mobility for families using them,
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968)
Supreme Court rules that federal government can intervene in private sales if such sales are racially discriminatory - ends racially restrictive covenants
JONES v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
California Court finds that Los Angeles ordinances criminalizing sleeping in public spaces as unconstitutional.
Just vs. Marinette County (1972)
Municipalities can restrict infill of wetlands and shorelines. Established that environmental protection regulations are a reasonable exercise of the police power of the state and do not amount to a taking of private property without just compensation; The natural state of the shore land is a public interest that sup
Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court (2005)
Eminent domain; Economic development is a public use for which the power of eminent domain may be exercised when part of an integrated development plan. Fifth Amendment The Supreme Court ruled that a economic development is a valid use of eminent domain. The court found that it is not in a position to determine the amount or character of land needed for a particular public project.
