Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe 1971 |
Area: Environment Essential Issue: Hard Look Doctrine USSC established “hard look” doctrine: Decision of the Sec of Trans. To construct a highway through Overton Park, a public park in Memphis, was overturned because no consideration had been given to finding an alternate route that would minimize harm to the park. |
|
|
Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Comm v US Atomic Energy Commission 1971 |
Area: Environment Essential Issue: Fullest extent of environmental considerations DC Circuit Court concluded that the rules adopted by the AEC governing how the agency would consider environmental values in its decision making processes did not comply with NEPA’s standard that environmental considerations must be made to the fullest extent possible. |
|
|
Just v Marinette County 1972 |
Area: Environment Essential Issue: Zoning, enviro regs are exercise of police power, not a taking Wisc Sup Ct upheld a zoning ordinance that restricted development on wetland next to navigable waters. Established that enviro protection regs are a reasonable exercise of the police power of the state and do not amount to a taking of private property without just compensation. Court concluded that the natural state of the shore land is a public interest that supersedes any individual landowner's right to develop such property. |
|
|
Sierra Club v Morton 1972 |
Area: Environment Essential Issue: Standing of plaintiff US Sup Ct ruled that the SC did not have standing to sue the US Forest Service for allowing a proposed ski resort development in the Sequoia National Forest because it had not suffered economic, aesthetic, or environmental injury. |
|
|
TVA v Hill 1978 |
Area: Environment Essential Issue: Endangered species, authority of Sec of Interior US SC established that the Sec of Interior has the authority to decide if a federal activity threatens or endangers a listed species. Enforcement of the 1973 Endangered Species Act halted construction of the nearly completed, $100 million Tellico dam in order to protect an endangered fish known as the Tennessee snail darter. |
|
|
Agins v Tiburon 1980 |
Area: Environment Essential Issue: Takings, advancing a legitimate governmental interest US SC ruled that the open space requirements established by the City of Tiburon, CA did not result in a taking of property. This established the principle that a governmental action was not a regulatory taking if it substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. Note that in 2005 Lingle v Chevron case, the US SC decided that this principle was not appropriate for evaluating a regulatory taking claim. |
|
|
Monsanto v US 1980 |
Area: Environment Essential Issue: Liability of absentee landlord for lessee's removal of hazardous waste Fourth Circuit US Appeals ruled an absentee landowner, ignorant of pollution on land dleased to someone else, is liable for partial removal of hazardous waste stored by the entity leasing the land. |
|
|
GE v Litton Industrial Automation Systems 1990 |
Area: Environment Essential Issue: Validity of Comprehensive Enviro Response, Compensation and Liability Act SUPERFUND Eighth Cir US Appeals validated the CERCLA. The act requires the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and is a strict liability statute open on to interpretation in the case of acts of God, acts of war, or unusual acts by third parties. |
|
|
Babbitt v Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon 1996 |
Area: Environment Essential Issue: Land development, endangered species act, definition of harm, regulatory takings US SC decided that the government can restrict land development to protect endangered species and their habitats, per the Endangered Species Act of 1976, and it does not constitute a taking. More specifically, the Court sought to validate the definition of harm as including significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures wildlife. |
|
|
Palazzolo v Rhode Island 2001 |
Area: Environment Essential Issue: Regulatory taking, all economically viable use Palazzolo owned 18 acres of undeveloped salt marsh and wanted to fill the wetlands; he claimed that enviro protection laws prohibiting this constituted a taking of his property. The US SC decided that by not allowing him to fill the land, purchased after the regs were in effect, the regs had not removed all economically viable use of the land and that, therefore, this was not a taking. SEE AGINS |
|
|
Hadacheck v Sebastian 1915 |
Area: Land use Essential Issue: Restriction of nuisances, police power The US SC ruled that restricting certain nuisance land uses was a legitimate exercise of police power. Upheld an ordinance in LA prohibiting the operation of a brickyard and brick kiln. |
|
|
PA Coal v Mahon 1922 |
Area: Land Use Essential Issue: Takings, regs going too far, established regulatory takings Produced the first decision holding that a land use restriction constituted a taking. THe US SC said, “property may be regulated to a certain extent, but if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking,” thus acknowledging the principle of a regulatory taking. Established the concept that regulation of land use might be a taking. |
|
|
Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty 1926 |
Area: Land use Essential Issue: Validity of Zoning, police power The US SC upheld the validity of zoning as a legitimate exercise of the police power and emphasized the need to separate land uses, particularly the importance of separating single-family homes from other uses, in order to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Established zoning as a valid exercise of the police power by local government. |
|
|
Berman v Parker 1954 |
Area: Land Use Essential Issue: Eminent domain for private uses The US SC upheld a redevelopment program that shifted public property to private hands and stated that public ownership of property was not the sole way to promote public purposes. Established aesthetics and redevelopment as valid public purposes for exercising the power of eminent domain. Opened the door for later cases, including 2005 Kelo ruling that condemnation of property needing economic improvement is a public purpose and therefore constitutional. |
|
|
People v Stover 1963 |
Area: Land use Essential Issue: Ordinances for aesthetic purposes NY Ct of Appeals ruled that a City of Rye aesthetics ordinance prohibiting a clothesline in a front yard or side yard is a viable exercise of the police power eve in enacted for aesthetic reasons alone. The ordinance was initiated in protest of the Stovers’ continual hanging of rags and unsightly apparel on their clothesline as a way to protest high taxes. The court made clear that ordinances enacted for aesthetic reasons were permissible. |
|
|
Cheney v Village 2 at New Hope 1968 |
Area: Land use Essential Issue: PUD, legislative authority of planning commission SC of PA found that the PUD process did not violate the municipal comprehensive plan and did not extend legislative authority to the planning commission. Established the legitimacy of a PUD process. |
|
|
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v Petaluma City 1971 |
Area: Land use Essential Issue: Growth quotas Petaluma was experiencing rapid growth and development largely in the form of single-family homes. The city wished to limit this type of development and adopted a limit on the number of building permits for SF home that would be issued each year. The city was sued on the grounds that its plan was arbitrary and capricious. Ninth Circuit of Appeals upheld Petaluma’s plan on the grounds that it sought to preserve small town character and open space and promote growth at an orderly rate. |
|
|
Spur Industries Inc v Del E Webb Development Co 1972 |
Area: Land use Essential Issue: Nuisances, priority of occupation Pre-existing cattle feedlot operated by Spur Industries became a nuisance for a residential area more recently established by Webb Development. AZ Ct of appeals rule that a large cattle operation should move to accommodate additional urban development. However, the developers were required to pay damages and expenses to the cattle feedlot owners. |
|
|
Golden v Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo 1972 |
Area: Land use Essential Issue: Growth management, permit denial before utilities Town of Ramapo zoning ordinance required timed and sequential growth. Developers couldn’t get building permits until certain facilities were in place. NY Ct of Appeals ruled that local government could control growth on the basis that adequate public services and facilities are necessary and should precede additional subdivision development. Landmark case supported the authority of local governments to regulate subdivision of land as a means to manage and control municipal growth. |
|
|
Fasano v Board of County Commissioners of Washington County 1973 |
Area: Land use Essential Issue: Burden of proof in zoning changes, consistency with comp plan Concerned rezoning to permit a large mobile home park. Court in Oregon determined that the burden of justifying a change to zoning regulations falls upon the party seeking the change and that that party must show that the change will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. |
|
|
Village of Belle Torre v Borras 1974 |
Area: Housing Essential Issue: Rental, family definition, students The USSC upheld the right of the community near SUNY Stonybrook, to prohibit more than two unrelated individuals from living together in order to preserve a quiet single-family neighborhood. Subsequent decisions in various jurisdictions have prohibited limited the size or definition of a family. |
|
|
Southern Burlington NAACP v Mount Laurel (Mt Laurel I) 1975 |
Area: Housing Essential Issue: Exclusionary zoning, accommodate a fair share of affordable housing The NJ SC struck down an exclusionary zoning ordinance adopted by Mt Laurel which prevented the construction of affordable housing for poor and moderate-income families. The court ordered the individual jurisdictions to rewrite zoning laws to accommodate the need for providing a fair share of the affordable housing stock. |
|
|
Moore v City of East Cleveland 1977 |
Area: Housing Essential Issue: Related individuals, definition of family The USSC struck down an ordinance that had the effect of making illegal the shared occupancy of closely related individuals (a grandmother and her grandchildren). In addition, the court ruled that cities could not define family to exclude closely related individuals from living together. |
|
|
Village of Arlington Heights v Metro Housing Development Corp 1977 |
Area: Housing Essential Issue: 14th amendment due process, Equal Protection Clause Village refused to grant a rezoning application necessary to allow construction of affordable housing stock. USSC determined that the zoning regulations did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment because there was no evidence of intentional racial discrimination. |
|
|
Southern Burlington NAACP v Mount Laurel (Mt Laurel II) 1983 |
Area: Housing Essential Issue: Fair share criteria, affirmative measures The NJ SC in response to noncompliance with the Mt Laurel I constitutional mandate, decided to establish criteria for determining fair share requirements in growth areas in NJ. The fair share requirements included the removal of restrictive barriers, density bonuses, mandatory set asides, and mobile home zoning. |
|
|
City of Cleburne v Cleburne Living Center, Inc. 1985 |
Area: Housing Essential Issue: Group homes for mentally retarded, rational basis The USSC ruled that the city of cleburne did not have the right to deny the living center a permit for a group home for the mentally retarded because there was no rational basis for the prohibition. |
