Lesson 4 - Law

Question 1

Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013)

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

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

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

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

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912)

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

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

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926)

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 7

The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate greenhouse gases.

Question 8

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

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

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

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

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

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

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

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

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

Answer 12

Fifth Amendment

The court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The court found that urban renewal was a valid public purpose.

Question 13

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

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

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

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

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

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

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

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

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

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

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

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 19

The Court found that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.

Question 20

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

Answer 20

First Amendment

The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.

Question 21

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

Answer 21

First Amendment
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.

Question 22

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

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

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

Answer 23

Fourteenth Amendment
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.

Question 24

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

Answer 24

Fifth Amendment
The Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation. 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.

Question 25

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

Answer 25

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.

Question 26

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

Answer 26

First Amendment
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores, 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 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 this 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). The Court ruled that the Act is a constitutional religious accommodation under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Question 27

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975)

Answer 27

Growth Management

The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.

Question 28

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

Answer 28

Fifth Amendment
The Court found that regulations must serve a substantial public purpose and that exactions are valid as long as the exaction and the project are reasonably related. The court also found that the California Coastal Commission’s requirement to dedicate an easement for public beach access was not reasonable.

Question 29

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976)

Answer 29

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

Question 30

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

Answer 30

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.

Question 31

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972)

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915)

Answer 32

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.

Question 33

Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928)

Answer 33

Zoning
The Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public).

Question 34

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

Answer 34

Fifth Amendment
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 Court found that Suitum’s taking claim was ripe for adjudication. The petitioner owned an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe. 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. Suitum sued claiming a taking requiring compensation.

Question 35

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

Answer 35

Fifth Amendment
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 constituted a taking.

Question 36

Welch v. Swasey (1909)

Answer 36

Zoning
The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height. An act in 1905 in Massachusetts enabled the limitation of building heights and the court held that height discrimination is based on reasonable ground and a proper exercise of the police power of the state and does not violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Question 37

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

Answer 37

Fifth Amendment
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. The court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking.

Question 38

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

Answer 38

Fourteenth Amendment
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 remanded to the lower court for further consideration.

Question 39

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

Answer 39

Fourteenth Amendment
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.

Question 40

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

Answer 40

First Amendment
The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance does 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 advance a legitimate state interest. The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles.

Question 41

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

Answer 41

Fifth Amendment
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.

Question 42

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 42

The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Question 43

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

Answer 43

Fourteenth Amendment
The court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values. The court extended the concept of zoning under police power to include a community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles. The court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single family.

Question 44

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

Answer 44

Fifth Amendment
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.

Question 45

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.; US Supreme Court (2015)

Answer 45

In this case the Supreme Court was asked to evaluate whether disparate impact is the appropriate standard in which to evaluate the impact of the Fair Housing Act. Inclusive Communities Project claimed that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs was disproportionately granting tax credits to developments in minority neighborhoods and denying credits to developments within Caucasian neighborhoods. The Court held that Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act. The result is that policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violates the Fair Housing Act.

Question 46

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida

Answer 46

Fifth Amendment
Department of Environmental Protection (2009)
The Supreme Court ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state did not represent a taking to the waterfront property owners.