Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

AICP > Supreme Court > Flashcards

Supreme Court Flashcards

1
Q

Created modern Endangered Species Act law

A

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978)

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

Young v. American Mini Theaters Inc (1976)

A

Upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit

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

The Secretary of Transportation can only approve use of federal funds for construction of a highway in a public park if no (a) feasible and prudent alternative exists, and (b) after undertaking all possible planning to minimize harm.

Established the “hard look” doctrine for environmental impact review

A

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)

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

Acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory takings claim

A

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2000)

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

Court allowed time phasing of future residential growth until performance conditions were met

A

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

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

Commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently

Extended commercial speech to aesthetic regulation.

A

Metromedia v. City of San Diego (1981)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q
  1. Young v American Mini Theaters (1976)
  2. City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986)
A

What are the two main cases regarding “Freedom of Expression”?

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

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)

A

Regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign

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

If a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking;

The U.S. Supreme Court indicated, for the first time, that regulation of land use might be a taking

A

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)

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

upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits

A

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

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

Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)

A

the invasion of the plaintiff’s property was “serious and highly injurous” - rezoning that rendered the tract worthless

Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose

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

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was not facially unconstitutional but was instead a permissible accommodation of religion under the First Amendment.

A

Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)

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

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

A

Court allowed time phasing of future residential growth until performance conditions were met

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

Moratoria on development do not constitute a taking requiring compensation

A

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council et al v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al (2002)

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

Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)

A

prohibition of production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th amendment; approved the regulation of the location of land uses

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

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

A

NYC Landmark Preservation Law did not constitute a taking

Historic preservation ordinances were constitutional because they fulfilled a valid public purpose

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

The Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent the State of Illinois from regulating charges for use of a business’s grain elevators.

A

Munn v. Illinois (1876)

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

the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases

A

Massachusetts v. EPA (2006)

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

submerged lands that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation

A

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)

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

ordinance giving one set of property owners ability to impose setbacks through petition deprives other owners of due process

A

Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking

A

Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (1975)

A

Towns must accept fair share of affordable housing, equal protection clause

Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning.

Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of the region’s growth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Made NEPA requirements judicially enforceable

A

Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (1971)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Suitman v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997)

A

By determining that Suitum’s property was ineligible for development, the agency had had made final determination, even though she had not attempted to sell the TDRs which she had received, or was eligible to receive, under the agency plan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Texas Dept 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; policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violate the Fair Housing Act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies

A

Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council et al v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al (2002)

A

Moratoria on development do not constitute a taking requiring compensation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Welch v Swasey (1909)

A

established the right of municipalities to regulate building height

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

State law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process

A

Mugler v. Kansas (1887)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

City of Boerne v. FLores (1997)

A

Enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985)

A

Defined the ripeness doctrine for judicial review of takings claims

Ripeness doctrine: prohibiting federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over a case until an actual controversy is presented involving a threat of injury that is real and immediate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit

A

Young v. American Mini Theaters Inc (1976)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

City of Boernes v. Flores (1997)

A

enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional powder under the 14th amendment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2000)

A

Acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory takings claim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Spur Industries v. Webb Development (1972)

A

“coming to a nuisance” doctrine
Webb’s choice to come to the nuisance could not preclude the public from being protected from the nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. CIty of Petaluma (1971)

A

upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Army Corps of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway; wetlands without a connection to other navigable waters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act

A

Rapanos v. United States (2006)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act; policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violate the Fair Housing Act

A

Texas Dept of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc (2015)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

What were the two main cases regarding signage?

A
  1. Metromedia v. City of San Diego (1981)
  2. Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
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 without a connection to other navigable waters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation (1987)

A

Federal statute that authorized the FCC to regulate rents for the use of utility poles were not a taking

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Massachusetts v. EPA (2006)

A

the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

as long as the community believed there was a threat of nuisance, the zoning ordinance could be upheld

A

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co (1926)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

prohibition of production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th amendment; approved the regulation of the location of land uses

A

Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on public utilities and services

Recognized growth phasing programs.

A

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo (1972)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

The taking of a private property for a public purpose, provided that just compensation is paid, does not violate the 5th Amendment;

Urban renewal is a valid public purpose

A

Berman v. Parker (1954)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Metromedia v. City of San Diego (1981)

A

Commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently

Extended commercial speech to aesthetic regulation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980)

A

Upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles (1987)

A 
The complete destruction of the value of property constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.
Allowed damages (as opposed to invalidation) as a remedy for regulatory takings.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign

A

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

When a discretionary land-use permit is denied because the applicant declines to pay for improvements to other, unrelated property, a challenge to the constitutionality of the denial must be evaluated under the “essential nexus” standard of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and the “rough proportionality” requirement of Dolan v. City of Tigard.

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)

A

submerged lands that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good

A

Munn v. Illinois (1876)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

An exaction is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use

Extended Nollan’s “essential nexus” test to require “rough proportionality” between development impact and conditions

A

Dolan v. Tigard (1994)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Required zoning be consistent with comprehensive plans and recognized that rezonings may be quasi-judicisal as well as legislative

A

Fasano v. Board of County Commissionsers of Washington County (1973)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

legitimized the planned unit development process

A

Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope (1968)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

The government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property (installing cables) and was therefore a taking

Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimis.

A

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp (1982)

58
Q

“coming to a nuisance” doctrine
Webb’s choice to come to the nuisance could not preclude the public from being protected from the nuisance

A

Spur Industries v. Webb Development (1972)

59
Q

Economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain

A

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

60
Q

upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued

A

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. CIty of Petaluma (1971)

61
Q

By determining that Suitum’s property was ineligible for development, the agency had had made final determination, even though she had not attempted to sell the TDRs which she had received, or was eligible to receive, under the agency plan

A

Suitman v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997)

62
Q

The acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose; first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation

A

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)

63
Q

Placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable

A

City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986)

64
Q

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

A

When a discretionary land-use permit is denied because the applicant declines to pay for improvements to other, unrelated property, a challenge to the constitutionality of the denial must be evaluated under the “essential nexus” standard of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and the “rough proportionality” requirement of Dolan v. City of Tigard.

65
Q

Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)

A

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was not facially unconstitutional but was instead a permissible accommodation of religion under the First Amendment.

66
Q

Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (1971)

A

Made NEPA requirements judicially enforceable

67
Q

City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986)

A

Placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable

68
Q

Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope (1968)

A

legitimized the planned unit development process

69
Q

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

A

Cities cannot define “family” so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other

70
Q

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)

A

The Secretary of Transportation can only approve use of federal funds for construction of a highway in a public park if no (a) feasible and prudent alternative exists, and (b) after undertaking all possible planning to minimize harm.

Established the “hard look” doctrine for environmental impact review

71
Q

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

A

A governmental exaction has to be substantially related to a legitimate government interest and there must be a nexus between the exaction and that interest. California Coastal Commission’s requirement to dedicate an easement for public beach access was not reasonable.

Created the “essential nexus” takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications a nd exactions.

72
Q

NYC Landmark Preservation Law did not constitute a taking

Historic preservation ordinances were constitutional because they fulfilled a valid public purpose

A

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

73
Q

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)

A

The acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose; first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation

74
Q

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978)

A

Created modern Endangered Species Act law

75
Q

The city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages

A

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

76
Q

Federal statute that authorized the FCC to regulate rents for the use of utility poles were not a taking

A

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation (1987)

77
Q

Cities cannot define “family” so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other

A

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

78
Q

Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)

A

Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies

79
Q

The enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act (Pennsylvania’s Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act)

A

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis (1987)

80
Q

Repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land (development was in conformance with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordiance)

A

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd (1999)

81
Q

Cohen v. Des Plains (1990)

A

Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments; Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn’t

82
Q

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005)

A

a licensed radio operator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

83
Q

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp (1982)

A

The government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property (installing cables) and was therefore a taking

Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimis.

84
Q

What case was a main challenge against the clean air act?

A

Massachusetts v. EPA (2006)

85
Q

the invasion of the plaintiff’s property was “serious and highly injurous” - rezoning that rendered the tract worthless

Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose

A

Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)

86
Q

A governmental exaction has to be substantially related to a legitimate government interest and there must be a nexus between the exaction and that interest. California Coastal Commission’s requirement to dedicate an easement for public beach access was not reasonable.

Created the “essential nexus” takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications a nd exactions.

A

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

87
Q

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo (1972)

A

upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on public utilities and services

Recognized growth phasing programs.

88
Q

a railroad right of way is an easement so when a railroad abandons it, the easement disappears

A

Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States (2013)

89
Q

What were the factors the US Supreme Court used to determine the Penn Central Transportation Company vs. The City of New York Case?

A

The court found that a taking is based on:

  1. The extent of the dimuntion of value
  2. Interference with investment backed expectations
  3. The character of the regulation to determine whether a regulation deprives one of property rights
90
Q

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co (1926)

A

as long as the community believed there was a threat of nuisance, the zoning ordinance could be upheld

91
Q

Lingle v. Chevron (2005)

A

Contrary to the holding of Agins v. City of Tiburon,[1] the test of whether a governmental regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to determining whether the regulation effects an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

92
Q
A
93
Q

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977)

A

Zoning ordinance did not violate 14th amendment based on application of Disparate Impact/Purposeful Discrimination test.

Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts.

94
Q

Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme

A

Just v. Marinette County (1972)

95
Q

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd (1999)

A

Repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land (development was in conformance with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordiance)

96
Q

Applied the Endangered Species Act to land development

A

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995)

97
Q

What Supreme Court case preceded the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000?

A

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v Flores, Congress passed the Religious and Institutionalized Persons Act

98
Q

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)

A

If a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking;

The U.S. Supreme Court indicated, for the first time, that regulation of land use might be a taking

99
Q

Found that changes that the city made to their zoning ordinance brought the ordinance into compliance with RLUIPA

A

Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. The City of Chicago

100
Q

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995)

A

Applied the Endangered Species Act to land development

101
Q

What 2 cases have the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 been challenged in?

A
  1. Civil Liberties for Urban Believers vs. the City of Chicago (2003)
  2. Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)
102
Q

Defined the ripeness doctrine for judicial review of takings claims

Ripeness doctrine: prohibiting federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over a case until an actual controversy is presented involving a threat of injury that is real and immediate

A

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985)

103
Q

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

A

The city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages

104
Q

Fasano v. Board of County Commissionsers of Washington County (1973)

A

Required zoning be consistent with comprehensive plans and recognized that rezonings may be quasi-judicisal as well as legislative

105
Q

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

A

The city placed a regulation that required the placement of a public park on aprivate property leaving no income producing use of the property;

Invalidated the regulation, not ruled as a taking

106
Q

a licensed radio operator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

A

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005)

107
Q

Just v. Marinette County (1972)

A

Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme

108
Q

Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas (1974)

A

The police power is a valid basis for establishing residential zones that limit the number of unrelated individuals who may inhabit a dwelling

109
Q

Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912)

A

ordinance giving one set of property owners ability to impose setbacks through petition deprives other owners of due process

110
Q
A
111
Q

Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments; Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn’t

A

Cohen v. Des Plains (1990)

112
Q

The city placed a regulation that required the placement of a public park on aprivate property leaving no income producing use of the property;

Invalidated the regulation, not ruled as a taking

A

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

113
Q

Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. The City of Chicago

A

Found that changes that the city made to their zoning ordinance brought the ordinance into compliance with RLUIPA

114
Q

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis (1987)

A

The enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act (Pennsylvania’s Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act)

115
Q

Dolan v. Tigard (1994)

A

An exaction is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use

Extended Nollan’s “essential nexus” test to require “rough proportionality” between development impact and conditions

116
Q

Owner not permitted to make an unreasonable use of premises to the material annoyance of a neighbor, if the latter’s enjoyment of life or property is materially lessened

A

Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp (1932)

117
Q

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

A

Economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain

118
Q

Hydroelectric dams are subject to the Clean Water Act

A

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (2006)

119
Q

Munn v. Illinois (1876)

A

Regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good

120
Q

established the right of municipalities to regulate building height

A

Welch v Swasey (1909)

121
Q

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v Flores, Congress passed the Religious and Institutionalized Persons Act

A

What Supreme Court case preceded the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000?

122
Q

Enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A

City of Boerne v. FLores (1997)

123
Q

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

A

upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits

124
Q

Sign ordinance that bans some signs based on content is unconstitutional

A

City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)

125
Q

Contrary to the holding of Agins v. City of Tiburon,[1] the test of whether a governmental regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to determining whether the regulation effects an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

A

Lingle v. Chevron (2005)

126
Q

The police power is a valid basis for establishing residential zones that limit the number of unrelated individuals who may inhabit a dwelling

A

Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas (1974)

127
Q 
The complete destruction of the value of property constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.
Allowed damages (as opposed to invalidation) as a remedy for regulatory takings.
A

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles (1987)

128
Q

Berman v. Parker (1954)

A

The taking of a private property for a public purpose, provided that just compensation is paid, does not violate the 5th Amendment;

Urban renewal is a valid public purpose

129
Q

enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional powder under the 14th amendment

A

City of Boernes v. Flores (1997)

130
Q

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (2006)

A

Hydroelectric dams are subject to the Clean Water Act

131
Q

Towns must accept fair share of affordable housing, equal protection clause

Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning.

Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of the region’s growth

A

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (1975)

132
Q

Mugler v. Kansas (1887)

A

State law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process

133
Q

City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)

A

Sign ordinance that bans some signs based on content is unconstitutional

134
Q

Munn v. Illinois (1876)

A

The Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent the State of Illinois from regulating charges for use of a business’s grain elevators.

135
Q

Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp (1932)

A

Owner not permitted to make an unreasonable use of premises to the material annoyance of a neighbor, if the latter’s enjoyment of life or property is materially lessened

136
Q

What two main cases challenges the clean water act?

A
  1. Rapanos v. United States (2006)
  2. SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (2006)
137
Q

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

A

There is a taking if there is a total reduction in value after the regulation is in place

Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place

Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principles of law

138
Q

Zoning ordinance did not violate 14th amendment based on application of Disparate Impact/Purposeful Discrimination test.

Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts.

A

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977)

139
Q

Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States (2013)

A

a railroad right of way is an easement so when a railroad abandons it, the easement disappears

140
Q

There is a taking if there is a total reduction in value after the regulation is in place

Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place

Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principles of law

A

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

141
Q

What are the two main cases regarding “Freedom of Expression”?

A
  1. Young v American Mini Theaters (1976)
  2. City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986)

AICP (3 decks)

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