Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
100 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What case established the right of municipalities to regulate building height?
|
Welch v. Swasey, 1909
|
|
|
Welch v. Swasey
|
Established the right of municipalities to regulate building height
|
|
|
What case first approved the use of setback regulations?
|
Eubank v. City of Richmond, 1912
(although it overturned the setbacks in this case) |
|
|
Eubank v. City of Richmond, 1912
|
Court first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case.
|
|
|
Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 1915
|
Approved the regulation of the location/separation of land uses
|
|
|
What case first approved the regulation of the location or separation of land uses?
|
Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 1915
|
|
|
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co, 1926
|
First case to uphold modern zoning as a proper use of police power.
Community must believe that there was a threat of a nuisance. |
|
|
First case to uphold zoning as a proper use of police power when community believed there was a threat of a nuisance.
|
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co, 1926
|
|
|
Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 1928
|
Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose
|
|
|
What case used a rational basis of serving a public purpose to strike down a zoning ordinance?
|
Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 1928
|
|
|
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, NC, 1975
|
Court found that Mt. Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multifamily, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing. Court required the town to change zoning to inclusionary zoning so that all income levels could live there. Introduced "fair-share" concept of housing.
|
|
|
What case established exclusionary vs. inclusionary zoning and "fair share" idea of providing housing to all income groups?
|
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 1975
|
|
|
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, 1972
|
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 fire houses.
|
|
|
What case upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals on the availability of public infrastructure and services?
|
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, 1972
|
|
|
Counstruction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, 1975
|
Court upheld a city's restrictions on the annual number of building permits issued as a growth management technique
|
|
|
What case upheld a growth management technique where a city could limit the annual number of building permits issued?
|
Counstruction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, 1975
|
|
|
What court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits?
|
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore, 1976
|
|
|
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore, 1976
|
Case upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
|
|
|
Young v. American Mini Theaters, 1976
|
Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses without violating First Amendment.
Zoning scheme said that an adult theatre may not be located within 1,000 feet of any two other "regulated uses" including adult bookstores, other adult theaters, bars, dance halls, and hotels |
|
|
What case upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses without violating the first amendment?
|
Young v. American Mini Theaters, 1976
|
|
|
Metromedia Inc. v City of San Diego, 1981
|
Case found that tighter restrictions on non-commercial billboards than on commercial billboards violated the First Amendment because it based is regulation on content and wasn't content-neutral. Court found that commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently
|
|
|
This case found that tighter restrictions on non-commercial billboards than on commercial billboards violated the First Amendment. Established that commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently.
|
Metromedia, Inc. v City of San Diego, 1981
|
|
|
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 1986
|
Court upheld distance separation or concentration requirements for adult uses where the regulation serves a substantial government interest and leaves open alternative methods of communication. Also held that the ordinance can regulate the secondary effects (such as traffic and crime) and that cities can rely on findings of other communities.
|
|
|
What court upheld content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations as long as the regulation advances a significant government interest and provides alternative avenues of the communication?
Also validated ordinances that regulate the secondary effects (traffic and crime) and not the content. |
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 1986
|
|
|
In what primary ways does the First Amendment come into play in the planning profession?
|
Regulation of signs
Regulation of adult uses Regulation of religious uses |
|
|
This case held that aesthetics was a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare and upheld redevelpment programs that took property in eminent domain and resold it to private developers.
|
Berman v. Parker, 1954
Upheld by Redevelopment Act of 1945 (urban renewal) |
|
|
Berman v. Parker, 1954
|
Court held that Redevelopment Act of 1945 made it constitutional for a redevelopment program to take a property in eminent domain and resell it to a private developer for urban renewal purposes. Held that aesthetics was a valid public purpose for eminent domain taking.
|
|
|
Massachusetts v. EPA, 2006
|
Legal case regarding Clean Air Act. Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate greenhouse gases
|
|
|
This case said that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases
|
Massachusetts v. EPA, 2006
|
|
|
Rapanos v. US, 2006
|
Court found that Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a "significant nexus" between a wetland and a navigable waterway.
Wetland has to contribute to a waterway. How do you determine whether a wetland contributes? Corp was using a loose definition - generally all wetlands are contributing. Court said the Corp had to evaluate on a case-by-case basis and decide on each individual wetland. |
|
|
This case established that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a contributing wetland and a navigable waterway.
Changed the way the Corp views wetlands, and must review permits a case-by-case basis to determine if its contributing. |
Rapanos v. US, 2006
|
|
|
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 2006
|
Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401 requires a permit for discharging water into navigable waters.
Key issue: definition of discharge. Court ruled that discharge should have its ordinary meaning. |
|
|
What case determined that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act which requires a permit for discharging water into navigable waters?
|
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Projection, 2006
|
|
|
Members of City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent, 1984
|
Court found that regulation of signs for aesthetic reasons was valid as long as the ordinance does not regulate the content of the sign.
If regulation is based on the content, it must be justified by a compelling government interest. |
|
|
What case established that regulation of signs for aesthetic reasons was valid as long as the ordinance doesn't regulate the content? Also established that sign regulations based on content must be justified by a compelling government interest.
|
Members of City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent, 1984
|
|
|
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000
|
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 the imposition of burden furthers a compelling government interest AND is the least restrictive means.
|
|
|
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 2005
|
Challenged RLUIPA. Court ruled that the Act is a constitutional religious accommodation under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause
|
|
|
Munn v. Illinois, 1876
|
Court established the principle of public regulation of private business in the public interest. Found that state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking under the 5th Amendment
|
|
|
What case found that regulating pricing did not constitute a taking, and thus established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest?
|
Munn v. Illinois, 1876
|
|
|
US v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company, 1896
|
First significant legal case dealing with historic preservation.
Found that acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose |
|
|
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 1922
|
First takings ruling, and defined a taking under the 5th Amendment.
Established that if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking |
|
|
What case was the first takings ruling that defined a taking under the 5th Amendment as "a regulation that goes too far"?
|
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon, 1922
|
|
|
Fred French Investigating Co. v. City of New York, 1976
|
City had a regulation that required the placement of a park on private property, leaving no income producing use of the property. Court did not rule it a taking; however, they did invalidate the regulation. Upheld transfer of development rights.
|
|
|
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 1978
|
Court considered the constitutionality of the NYC Landmarks Preservation Law. Identified a few factors of significance in determining a taking: extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment backed expectations, and character of government action (physical vs. regulatory).
|
|
|
What case first weighed the economic impact of a regulation on investment backed expectations and the character of the regulation in determining whether a regulation is a taking?
|
Penn Central Transportation Co. v City of New York, 1978
|
|
|
Agins v City of Tiburon, 1980
|
Upheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and determined the zoning was not a taking.
Takings test: becomes a taking if (1) does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest, or (2) denies an owner economically viable use of his land. |
|
|
What case established a takings test based on (1) whether it substantially advanced a legitimate state interest or (2) whether it denies an owner economically viable use of his land
|
Agins v. City of Tiburon, 1980
|
|
|
What case said that Agins' "substantially advances a legitimate state interest" is not an appropriate test for a takings? Established that the test is the "severity of the burden".
|
Lingle v. Chevron, 2005
|
|
|
Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp, 1982
|
Found that when there is a physical occupation, there is always a taking.
|
|
|
What case established that a physical occupation is always a taking?
|
Loretto v Teleprmpter Manhattan CATV Corp, 1982
|
|
|
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v County of Los Angeles, 1987
|
Case established that a government must pay compensation for the loss during the period of time that a regulation was in place. Established that there is no difference between a permanent and temporary taking. Court said that regulation either had to be removed, or compensate for the taking.
|
|
|
What case gave rise to the term "temporary taking" and that there is no difference between a temporary taking and permanent taking in determining whether compensation must be paid?
|
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v County of Los Angeles, 1987
|
|
|
Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v DeBendictus, 1987
|
Upheld a state act that required that 50% of coal beneath structures be kept in place to provide surface support. Assn. alleged taking, however court found that not a taking because it was justified by the public interests protected by the act. Established that for taking purposes, a property cannot be divided into separate segments and value of entire property had to be considered.
Also said some state interests are more legitimate than others. |
|
|
What case dealt with the possible "taking" of sub-surface rights by regulating extraction of minerals. This case established that for the purposes of evaluating the taking, the property could not be divided into separate segments and the value of the entire property had to be considered. It also established that the protection of surface rights is greater than the protection of the right of mineral extraction.
|
Keystone Coal v. DeBbendictus, 1987
|
|
|
FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 1987
|
Established that FCC's authorization to regulate rents charged by utility companies for utility poles was not a taking.
|
|
|
What case approved the FCC's authority to regulate rents charged by utility companies for the use of utility poles?
|
FCC v Florida Power Corp, 1987
|
|
|
Nollan v California Costal Commission, 1987
|
Court held that development exactions are valid so long as (1) advances a government purpose (Agins) and (2) there is a NEXUS between the imposed exaction and the government purpose
|
|
|
What case established the "essential nexus" test where the regulation or exaction must be reasonably related to the purpose.
|
Nollan v. California Costal Commission, 1987
|
|
|
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994
|
Case applied Nolan standard of "nexus" as well as establised standard of "rough proportionality", where conditions of regulation must be roughly proportional to impact of development. Burden on cities to make individualized determination for each condition or requirement.
|
|
|
What case established the "rough proportionality" test for takings whereby the city must individually demonstrate the proportionality of the conditions of the regulation or exaction to the developments impact?
|
Dolan v City of Tigard, 1994
|
|
|
Lucas v South Carolina Costal Council, 1992
|
Court found that where there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left), then there is a taking. Court found that Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations and so constituted a taking.
|
|
|
What case established that where regulations deprived a landowner of all economic viable use of their land, then there is a taking?
|
Lucas v South Carolina Costal Council, 1992
|
|
|
Ripeness Test for Adjudication
|
A landowner must have exhausted all administrative appeals regarding a particular application for development, including all appeals, having received final rejection, and having sought compensation.
|
|
|
Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1997
|
Court found that Suitum's taking claim was "ripe for adjudication" even though she had not attempted to transfer development rights as permitted under the regulation.
|
|
|
What case answered the question of whether an owner must attempt to sell the development rights before claiming a regulatory taking of property?
|
Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1997
|
|
|
City of Monterey v Del Monte Dunes, 1999
|
Case found that repeated denials of development permits deprived an owner of all economically viable use of land. Specifically, the development was in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.
|
|
|
What case found that repeated denials of development permits for a development that is in conformance with comp plan and zoning code constituted a taking?
|
City of Monterey v Del Monte Dunes, 1999
|
|
|
Moore v City of East Cleveland, 1977
|
Case established that cities cannot define "family" so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other.
|
|
|
What case set limits to the definition of "family" in terms of home occupancy?
|
Moore v City of East Cleveland, 1977
|
|
|
Palazzo v Rhode Island, 2001
|
Court established that acquisition of title after the effective date of regulation does not bar regulatory taking claims; Property owner claimed inverse condemnation (owner lost takings claim because didn't lose all economically viable use of land)
|
|
|
What case established that acquisition of title after the effective date of regulation does not bar regulatory claims?
|
Palazzo v. Rhode Island, 2001
|
|
|
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2002
|
Court found that the moratoria on development while the planning agency formulated a comprehensive plan for the area did not constitute a taking. Established that moratoria are not takings per se, but should be analyzed under the Penn Central test
|
|
|
What case established that moratoria are not takings per se, but should be analyzed under the Penn Central test?
|
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2002
|
|
|
Lingle v Chevron, 2005
|
Overturned the "substantially advances legitimate state regulation" part of Agins test, finding this test imprecise and not appropriate. Rather, the court established that it was the "severity of the burden" test that should be applied to determine a taking.
|
|
|
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v Abrams, 2005
|
Abrams challenged denial of a conditional use permit was a violation against the Telecommunications Act. Court found that a private individual cannot force enforcement of a federal act; that the federal Telecommunications Act had its own administrative remedy and process. Abrams should have gone to the Federal Communications Commission and reported the violation and let the commission enforce the remedy; not take them to court to force the enforcement.
Take away: private individuals cannot force enforcement of federal Acts if there is already an administrative remedy in place. |
|
|
What case established that an individual cannot force enforcement with a federal Act if an administrative process to remedy non-compliance already exists?
|
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v Abrams, 2005
(Telecommunications Act) |
|
|
Kelo v City of New London, 2005
|
Court ruled that economic development is a valid use of eminent domain.
|
|
|
What recent case found that economic development is a valid public purpose and therefore valid use of eminent domain?
|
Kelo v New London, 2005
|
|
|
Stop the Beach Renourishment v Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2009
|
Court ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state does not represent a taking to the waterfront property owners
|
|
|
What case dealt with whether lands that would be filled by the state constitutes a taking to waterfront properties?
|
Stop the Beach Renourishment v Florida Dept of Environmental Protection, 2009
|
|
|
Village of Belle Terre v Boaraas, 1974
|
Court determined that a community has the power to regulate lifestyle and values through limiting the number of unrelated persons that may live together as a "single-family"
|
|
|
What case upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together in a single-family?
|
Village of Belle Terre v Boaraas, 1974
|
|
|
Village of Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Development Corp, 1977
|
Court established that proof of discriminatory intent is required to invalidate a zoning action, even if it has racially disproportionate impacts. In other words, racially disproportionate impacts isn't sufficient enough evidence to invalidate a zoning action.
|
|
|
What case established that racially disproportionate impacts is not sufficient enough evidence to overturn a zoning action; that discriminatory intent must be shown?
|
Village of Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 1977
|
|
|
City of Borne v Flores, 1997
|
City prohibited a church from enlarging because they were in an historic district. Church challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and court found it unconstitutional because it exceeded the powers of the 14th Amendment.
|
|
|
First Amendment
|
Freedom of speech, religion and association
Deals with regulations on adult entertainment and signage |
|
|
Fifth Amendment
|
Just compensation when taking occurs
Deals with takings and eminent domain cases |
|
|
Fourteenth Amendment
|
Due process & equal protection
Deals with takings, exactions, ordinances, exclusionary zoning, and aesthetics; cases related to civil rights, discrimination, and group homes |
|
|
Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v City of Chicago, 2004
|
Civil Liberties said Chicago's ordinance violated 14th Amendment - argued city wasn't treating other uses in a similar way
During process, RLUIPA was passed and Chicago changed ordinance to meet RLUIPA So court determined in 2004 that the new ordinance brought it into compliance with RLUIPA and did not violate 14th Amendment |
|
|
RLUIPA, 2000
|
Cannot regulate churches more onerously than you would regulate other uses.
|
|
|
What was one of the first cases under RLUIPA?
|
Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 2004
|
|
|
San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 2005
|
Said state courts can rule on constitutional issues, and any ruling in the state court is the final ruling; can't switch to the federal court. Formalized the process.
Puts a cap on how far you can sue through the court system. |
|
|
What case formalized the court process where state courts can rule on constitutional issues and can't switch court systems once a ruling has been made.
|
San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 2005
|
|
|
Environmental Defense Council v Duke Energy Corp, 2007
|
Court clarified requirements around permitting; Court required Duke Energy to get permit
|
|
|
This case found that the Planned Unit Development process did not violate the municipal comprehensive plan and did not extend legislative authority to the planning commission
|
Cheney v. Village II at New Hope, 1968
|
|
|
This case about a rezoning to permit a large mobile home park determined that the burden of justifying a change to zoning regulation falls on the party seeking the change, and th e party must show consistency with the comprehensive plan.
|
Fasano v Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, 1973
|
|
|
Key Growth Management Cases
|
Petaluma, 1971 - allowed limit on issued building permits each year
Livermore, 1976 - allowed phasing of future residential growth until performance conditions met statewide standards Golden v Town of Ramapo, 1972 - allowed availability of public services to manage and control municipal growth |
|
|
Key Sign Ordinance Cases (First Amendment)
|
Metromedia v San Diego - Cannot regulate non-commercial signs differently than commercial signs
City Council v Town of Vincent - aesthetics is valid reason for sign regulation Ladue v Gilleo - cannot ban someone from posting noncommercial window signs in own residence |
|
|
Key "adult business" Cases (First Amendment)
|
Renton v Playtime - upheld prohibition of adult theatres within distance of residence, churhc, park, based on secondary effects
Young v American Mini Theaters - upheld restriction of concentration of adult businesses |
|
|
Early cases upholding zoning
|
Welch v Swasey, 1909 - upheld height restrictions
Eubank v Richmond, 1912 - upheld setbacks Hadacheck v Sebastian, 1915 - upheld separation of uses Euclid v Ambler, 1926 - upheld comprehensive zoning Nectow v Cambridge, 1928 - said zoning had to have valid public purpose |
