Midterm Cases Flashcards
Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp.
Donner Hanna won.Nuisance doctrine does not apply where plaintiff intentionally locates within a known industrial area, regardless of whether the particular source of the nuisance existed at the time the plaintiff located there.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
- Sebastian won. Provided that the restriction of future profitable uses was not a taking of property without just compensation. Pre-existing uses (brick kiln) could be removed if they become a nuisance as city grows and evolves. The USSC first approved the regulation of the location of land uses.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty
1926 - Takings - Restrictions on Use -This case upheld zoning as constitutional under US Constitution, as being within the police power of the state. If zoning classifications were reasonable, then they would be upheld. The USSC found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. The court first upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power.
Kelo v. City of New London
- City won. The city’s taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a “public use” within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings should be given deference. The takings here qualified as “public use” despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. 5th Amend. did not require “literal” public use but “broader and more natural interpretation of public use as ‘public purpose.”
Penn Coal v. Mahon
1922 -Penn coal won. while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” Land use regulation can be invalidated as a “regulatory taking” and compensation can be awarded. No reciprocity of advantage found.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
- NYC won. Upheld that the restrictions imposed are substantially related to general welfare, don’t interfere with current use, afford appellants opportunities to further enhance the property. 3-factor regulatory takings test: (1) economic impact of regulation, (2) owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations, and (3) character of regulatory action. diminution in property value alone does not establish a taking. Must focus on parcel as a whole.
1st English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles
- 1st Eng. won. Temp. taking requires just comp. Court held that building ban after flood violated Constitution. Noting that fate of the Plaintiff’s property had been in limbo for over 6 years, majority opinion argued that, because the plaintiff was unable to use its property during this time, a “taking” of the property had occurred.
Court rejected concept that sole remedy for taking is payment of full value of property.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
- Pres council won. Court held that that the mere enactment of the regulations implementing the moratoria did not constitute a per se taking of the landowners’ property. The Court reasoned that whether a taking occurred depended upon the considerations of landowners’ expectations, actual impact, public interest, and reasons for the moratoria. Moreover, the Court concluded that the adoption of a categorical rule that any deprivation of all economic use, no matter how brief, constituted a compensable taking would impose unreasonable financial obligations upon governments for the normal delays involved in processing land use applications.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge
- Nectow won. The USSC 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, & welfare of the public) as applied to plaintiff’s property. City wanted to rezone property in industrial area to be residential.
Berman v. Parker
- Parker won. Private property could be taken for a public purpose with just compensation. Department store owner in DC in part of town slated for redevelopment. Property was taken in order to make way for development, even though his store was not the cause of blight. Related to comprehensive plan and legit. Pub. Purp.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
- Midkiff won. State could use the eminent domain process to take land overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners (oligopoly in land ownership) and redistribute it to the wider population of private residents.
Used Berman v. Parker decision
Land did not have to be put into actual public use in order to use eminent domain. It is taking’s purpose, not mechanics that were important. Eminent domain used to provide overall market benefit to wider populace.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
- Palazzolo won. Claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated regulatory taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation challenged.
Loretto v. Teleprompter of Manhattan
- Loretto won. Physical occupation of property always results in a taking and demands just compensation (running cables across owner’s roof held a taking , even though it didn’t interfere with her business). De minimis taking.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
- Nollan won. Requirement by the CCC was a taking. Making issuance of permit conditional upon granting a lateral easement for public beach access was unconstitutional. No legitimate pub. purp. Lack of nexus: permit condition does not serve the same purpose as the original development ban.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission
- Lucas won. Total takings test. If 100% of property is taken and all economic value is lost, just comp. is required. Not always the case if only 95% of property had been taken. Beach Management Act was ruled invalid use of police power.
