Legal Cases Flashcards
What is the 1st Amendment constitutional principle?
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association
What is the 5th Amendment Constitutional principle?
Just compensation for a taking. Eminent domain and takings
Is zoning a valid use of police power?
Yes
What is the 14th Amendment constitutional principle?
Due process, substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection
How is the 1st Amendment applied?
Speech=adult uses and signs
Religion=religious facilities
Association=group homes
The taking of property without Just Compensation is a violation of what Amendment(s)?
5th and 14th
When and what were nuisance laws?
Before comprehensive zoning, persons with real property are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their land
Welch v. Swasey, 1909
Right of municipalities to regulate building height
-Proper exercise of police powers
-Does not violate equal protection and due process (14th)
Eubank v. City of Richmond, 1912
Ordinance establishing building lines was struck down because of the delegation of authority to private citizens
-But it was a valid exercise of police powers
Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 1915
Regulation of the location of land uses. Zoning ordinance that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate due process and equal protection (14th)
Village of Euclide v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926
Zoning ordinance should be upheld if there is a threat of nuisance.
-Zoning ordinance was proper use of police power
-Did not violate due process and equal protection (14th)
Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 1928
Rational basis test determined zoning ordinance had no public purpose (to promote health, safety, morals, and welfare)
-Violation of due process (14th)
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, 1972
Growth management system upheld. Development proposals only approved if they reached certain levels in availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses, developers could provide these
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, 1975
The Court upheld quotas on annual number of building permits issued
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore, 1976
The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits
Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 2013
1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement through land. When land is abandoned by railroad company, it is settled as an easement. If easement is abandoned, it reverts back to original owner
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc., 2006
EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases. GHG can be regulated as air pollutants
Rapanos v. United States, 2006
Army Corps of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway. Wetlands have to be adjacent to “Waters of the US”
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protect, 2006
Hydroelectric dams are subject to section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Need a federal license or permit to discharge into waters of the US
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 2015
Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act (protects from discrimination). Policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violate the Fair Housing Act
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., 1976
The court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit. Zoning of adult businesses based on their harmful secondary effects
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 1981
Commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. Overruled an ordinance that banned all signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 1984
Upheld LA ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles. Regulation was valid as long as it does not regulate the content of the signs. Must be justified by a compelling/legitimate governmental/state interest
City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., 1986
Upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single district. Ordinance was treating the secondary effects (traffic and crime) not the content. City cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment but available land does not have to be guaranteed
Religious Land use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
No government may implement land use regulations that imposes substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution unless it demonstrates that the burden furthers compelling governmental interests in the least restrictive way.
-Challenged by Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago
-Challenged by Cutter v. Wilkinson, 2005
Reed et al v. Town of Gilbert Arizona, 2014
Not content-neutral sign ordinance. City Cannot impose a more stringent restriction on some signs than others
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company, 1896
Aquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose. First historic preservation case
Pennsylvania Coal Co v. Mahon, 1922
If a regulation goes too far it is considered a taking. First takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th amendment
Berman v Parker, 1954
Aesthetics and urban renewal are valid public purposes
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New N York, 1976
Regulation that placed public park on private property was invalid because it left no income use of the property
Penn Central Transportation Co v. The City of New York, 1978
NYC Landmark Preservation Law regarding Grand Central Terminal. Taking did not deprive property rights
Agins v. City of Tiburon, 1980
Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density, not a taking
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 1982
Cable company put cables on building, property owner claimed it was a taking. Found to be taking requiring just compensation. Permanent physical occupation of private property
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angelos, 1987
Court found that if a property is unusable for a period of time, the ordinance can be set aside and the property owner can subject the government to pay damages
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, 1987
Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act required coal be stored in place to protect structures. Regulations were not considered a taking
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation, 1987
Regulation of rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles was not a taking
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation, 1987
Regulation of rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles was not a taking
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987
It was considered a taking to have requirement that homeowners on the beachfront need to maintain beach front access. There was legitimate public purpose but there must be just compensation. 5th and 14th amendment
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992
If there is no viable value left, it is a taking–if land was purchased prior to development regulations taking place
Dolan v. Tigard, 1994
Has to be a clear relationship between the nature and extent of proposed development. Exactions need to be “roughly proportional” to the burden imposed on the public
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1997
Do not have to sell development rights before filing a regulatory taking suit. Undeveloped lot with development rights that could be transferred
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunesat Monterey Ltd, 1999
City denied permit for a 190-unit residential complex on oceanfront. Denial deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land
Palazzo v. Rhode Island, 2001
The acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory takings claims. Claiming of inverse condemnations
Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council Inc. et al v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al, 2002
Moratoria on development did not constitute a taking requiring compensation
Lingle v. Chevron USA, 2005
Court overturned portions of Agins v. City of Tiburon–regulation of property is a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. Based on burden, not the government interest
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 2005
Telecommuncations Act of 1996, permit for radio antenna was denied and could not seek damages
Kelo v. City of New London, 2005
Economic Development is a valid use of eminent domain, even if it involves taking land for private development. Court cannot determine the amount or character of land needed to
Stop the Beach Nourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2009
Submerged lands that are likely to be filled did not constitute a taking without just compensation
Koontz v. St Johns River Water Management, 2012
The government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until a landowner agrees to dedicate land for a public use (conservation area)
