Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

AICP Flashcards > Legal Cases > Flashcards

Legal Cases Flashcards

1
Q

What is the 1st Amendment constitutional principle?

A

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the 5th Amendment Constitutional principle?

A

Just compensation for a taking. Eminent domain and takings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Is zoning a valid use of police power?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the 14th Amendment constitutional principle?

A

Due process, substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How is the 1st Amendment applied?

A

Speech=adult uses and signs
Religion=religious facilities
Association=group homes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The taking of property without Just Compensation is a violation of what Amendment(s)?

A

5th and 14th

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

When and what were nuisance laws?

A

Before comprehensive zoning, persons with real property are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Welch v. Swasey, 1909

A

Right of municipalities to regulate building height
-Proper exercise of police powers
-Does not violate equal protection and due process (14th)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Eubank v. City of Richmond, 1912

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 1915

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Village of Euclide v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 1928

A

Rational basis test determined zoning ordinance had no public purpose (to promote health, safety, morals, and welfare)
-Violation of due process (14th)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, 1972

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, 1975

A

The Court upheld quotas on annual number of building permits issued

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore, 1976

A

The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 2013

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc., 2006

A

EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases. GHG can be regulated as air pollutants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Rapanos v. United States, 2006

A

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”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protect, 2006

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 2015

A

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

21
Q

Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., 1976

A

The court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit. Zoning of adult businesses based on their harmful secondary effects

22
Q

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 1981

A

Commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. Overruled an ordinance that banned all signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs

23
Q

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 1984

A

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

24
Q

City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., 1986

A

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

25
Q

Religious Land use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

A

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

26
Q

Reed et al v. Town of Gilbert Arizona, 2014

A

Not content-neutral sign ordinance. City Cannot impose a more stringent restriction on some signs than others

27
Q

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company, 1896

A

Aquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose. First historic preservation case

28
Q

Pennsylvania Coal Co v. Mahon, 1922

A

If a regulation goes too far it is considered a taking. First takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th amendment

29
Q

Berman v Parker, 1954

A

Aesthetics and urban renewal are valid public purposes

30
Q

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New N York, 1976

A

Regulation that placed public park on private property was invalid because it left no income use of the property

31
Q

Penn Central Transportation Co v. The City of New York, 1978

A

NYC Landmark Preservation Law regarding Grand Central Terminal. Taking did not deprive property rights

32
Q

Agins v. City of Tiburon, 1980

A

Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density, not a taking

33
Q

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 1982

A

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

34
Q

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angelos, 1987

A

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

35
Q

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, 1987

A

Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act required coal be stored in place to protect structures. Regulations were not considered a taking

36
Q

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation, 1987

A

Regulation of rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles was not a taking

37
Q

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation, 1987

A

Regulation of rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles was not a taking

38
Q

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987

A

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

39
Q

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992

A

If there is no viable value left, it is a taking–if land was purchased prior to development regulations taking place

40
Q

Dolan v. Tigard, 1994

A

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

41
Q

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1997

A

Do not have to sell development rights before filing a regulatory taking suit. Undeveloped lot with development rights that could be transferred

42
Q

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunesat Monterey Ltd, 1999

A

City denied permit for a 190-unit residential complex on oceanfront. Denial deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land

43
Q

Palazzo v. Rhode Island, 2001

A

The acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory takings claims. Claiming of inverse condemnations

44
Q

Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council Inc. et al v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al, 2002

A

Moratoria on development did not constitute a taking requiring compensation

45
Q

Lingle v. Chevron USA, 2005

A

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

46
Q

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 2005

A

Telecommuncations Act of 1996, permit for radio antenna was denied and could not seek damages

47
Q

Kelo v. City of New London, 2005

A

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

48
Q

Stop the Beach Nourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2009

A

Submerged lands that are likely to be filled did not constitute a taking without just compensation

49
Q

Koontz v. St Johns River Water Management, 2012

A

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)

AICP Flashcards (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions