Lesson 4 - Law Flashcards
Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013)
The Court found that the 1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement for the railroad’s land. When the railroad company abandons land, it should be settled as an easement and if the easement is abandoned, the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)
Fifth Amendment
The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent, declaring that regulation of property effects a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. The court found this prong of the formula imprecise and not appropriate for determining if a taking has occurred. The other prong of the formula under Agins related to denial of economically viable use is unaffected.
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
Fifth Amendment
The Court found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking. The Court found that the enactment of the Act was justified by the public interests protected by the Act. 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.
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.
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York; New York Court of Appeals (1976)
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.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926)
Zoning
The Court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. The key question before the court was whether the Village of Euclid’s zoning ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the constitution. The key outcome of the court was that it upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)
The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate greenhouse gases.
Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management (2012)
Fifth Amendment
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. Because Koontz refused to undertake the mitigation work, St. John’s denied the application. The key question facing the course was whether the government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until the land owner has agreed to dedicate land for a 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.
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.
ty 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.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982)
Fifth Amendment The court found that where there is a physical occupation, there is a taking. 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.
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.
Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994)
Fifth Amendment
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. Among the answer choices the BEST answer is allocating the proportionate impact based on land use for the off-site improvements. Off-site improvements are ones for which only a portion of the impact would be created by individual development, while on-site improvements can typically be fully attributed to the development.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001)
Fifth Amendment
The property owner claimed inverse condemnation against the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council. The landowner was denied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club and was therefore an unlawful taking. The Supreme Court found that claims are ripe for adjudication–most importantly, acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims. The case was remanded.
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.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (1922)
Fifth Amendment
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.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (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.
Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014)
First Amendment
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 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.