Aicp Exam Review - Law Cases

Front 1

Welch v. Swasey (1909)

Back 1

This is a zoning case. Stated that cities had the right to regulate building height

Front 2

Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912)

Back 2

This is a zoning case. Found that setback regulations were a proper use of zoning.

Front 3

Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)

Back 3

This is a zoning case primarily. Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses.

Front 4

Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1926)

Back 4

This is a zoning case. Really important because it stated that zoning was a police power and that as long as a community believed that there is a threat of a nuisance, zoning should be upheld.

Front 5

Nectow v. City of Cambridge

Back 5

This is a zoning case. The Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose.

Front 6

Golden v. Planning Board of Rampao

Back 6

Upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities. Developments would only be approved once they got a certain number of points. This is a growth management case.

Front 7

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma

Back 7

This is a growth management case. The court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued by a municipality.

Front 8

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore

Back 8

Court upheld that temporary moratoriums on building permits were ok. This is a growth management case.

Front 9

Brandt Revocable Trust v. US

Back 9

This case found that the 1875 General RR ROW Act grants an easement for the railroads 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.

Front 10

Massachusetts v. EPA Inc.

Back 10

Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate Greenhouse Gases

Front 11

Rapanos vs. US

Back 11

The Court found that the Army Corp of engineers must determine if there is a rational nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.

Front 12

SD Warren v. Maine Board of the EPA

Back 12

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

Front 13

Tx. Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project

Back 13

Court held that disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act. the result is that any regulation that even inadvertently regulates minorities to poor areas violates the Fair Housing Act.

Front 14

Young v. American Mini Theaters

Back 14

This is a first amendment case. Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.

Front 15

Metromedia Inc. v City of San Diego

Back 15

Court found that commercial & non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently.

Front 16

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent

Back 16

This is a first amendment case. The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic purposes as long as content is not regulated. If the regulation is based on content it must have a compelling governmental interest. Aesthetics are a legitimate public purpose.

Front 17

City of Renton v Playtime Theaters

Back 17

This is a first amendment case. Placing restrictions on time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable but not on secondary effects. City does not have to guarantee that there is land available for development. Can also limit adult entertainment to a single zoning district.

Front 18

Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

Back 18

Don't unfairly burden religious land uses without a legitimate governmental purpose and do so in the least disruptive way in order to achieve that purpose.

Front 19

Reed et al v. Town of Gilbert

Back 19

This is a First Amendment case. Court found that the city cannot impose more stringent restrictions on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages.

Front 20

US v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company

Back 20

This is a fifth amendment case. Court found that the acquisition of the Gettysburg battlefield was a legitimate public purpose. First case to deal with Historic Preservation

Front 21

Pensylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon

Back 21

Court found that if a regulation goes too far if is a taking. This is the first taking ruling and defined what a taking is under the 5th Amendment

Front 22

Berman v. Parker

Back 22

Aesthetics is a valid public purpose. Urban renewal is a valid public purpose. 5th Amendment.

Front 23

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York

Back 23

The City had an ordinance requiring public park on private land which would have taken up the majority of the land on the parcel. Court invalidated the ordinance as it was a taking. Stated that transfer of development rights was not just compensation for a taking. 5th Amendment.

Front 24

Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York

Back 24

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. 5th Amendment.

Front 25

Agins v. City of Tiburon

Back 25

Court upheld the right of the city to zone property at low density. Required zoning/regulations to "substantially advance" a public interest. 5th Amendment.

Front 26

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan

Back 26

When there is a physical occupation, there is a taking. 5th Amendment.

Front 27

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

Back 27

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. 5th Amendment.

Front 28

Keystone Bituminous Coal Assoc. v. DeBenedicts

Back 28

An act in PA required 505 of the coal under 4 properties to stay in place in order to prevent subsidence damage. Court found that this is not a taking as the purpose is to protect public safety. 5th Amendment.

Front 29

FCC. v Florida Power Corp.

Back 29

Court upheld that the FCC can regulate rents charged by utility companies to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles. 5th amendment.

Front 30

Nollan v. California Coastal Council

Back 30

Regulations must serve a "substantial public purpose" and the exactions must be reasonably related to the public purpose. 5th Amendment case

Front 31

Dolan v. City of Tigard

Back 31

There must be a rational nexus between the exactions requirement and the development. Also, there must be a "rough proportionality" between the development and the exactions asked for by the city. 5th Amendment Case.

Front 32

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Back 32

Court found that there is a taking is there is a total reduction in value due to the regulation, except for where this regulation derived from the states law of property and nuisance. This is a 5th Amendment case.

Front 33

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Back 33

Property owner can sell development rights before claiming a regulatory taking. 5th Amendment case

Front 34

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes

Back 34

Repeated denials of permits deprive owners of all economically viable use of land and are a taking. 5th Amendment.

Front 35

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

Back 35

Acquisition of title after the effective date of a regulation does not bar regulatory takings claims. 5th Amendment

Front 36

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. TRPA

Back 36

Court found that a moratoria on development does not constitute a taking while a plan for that area is being developed. 5th Amendment

Front 37

Lingle v. Chevron USA

Back 37

Court overturned a portion of the Agins v Tiburon case, stating that the regulation of property effects a taking if it removes a "reasonable return" on investment instead of whether it "substantially advances" public interest. 5th Amendment

Front 38

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams

Back 38

Permit to an independent radio operator to have an antenna was denied. Sought damages, and was denied because it would distort the intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 5th Amendment

Front 39

Kelo v. City of New London

Back 39

Economic development is a legitimate public purpose. 5th Amendment.

Front 40

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v Florida Department of EPA

Back 40

Found that submerged lands that would be filled by the state did not represent a taking to waterfront property owners. 5th Amendment.

Front 41

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management

Back 41

The River Management people wanted Koontz to make improvements on one of their pieces of land in order to be able to develop his piece of land. He sued arguing that this was a taking. Court found that this was indeed a taking as there was no regulation requiring this. 5th Amendment.

Front 42

Munn v. Illinois

Back 42

14th Amendment Case. Court found that a state law regulating the price of something does not constitute a taking or is a violation of due process. Established principle of public regulation over private business in the public interest.

Front 43

Village of Belle Terre v. Boarass

Back 43

14th amendment. A community has the power to regulate a lifestyle and values. Court extended police powers from zoning to include a communitys desire for certain types of lifestyles.

Front 44

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp.

Back 44

A city can zone multi-family housing for specific areas and not allow it in other areas in order to maintain the "character of a community". 14th Amendment case.

Front 45

So. Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel

Back 45

Found that excluding multi-family, mobile home, or low to moderate income housing was a violation of the 14th amendment as it was exclusionary.

Front 46

City of Boerne v. Flores

Back 46

This was a challenge to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and was the precursor to the RLUIPA. Church denied ability to expand, and the court found that they were unfairly discriminated against.

Front 47

Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope

Back 47

PUDs are acceptable if the regulations focus on density requirements rather than specific rules for each lot

Front 48

Hunter v. Pittsburgh

Back 48

States have the right to be exempt from local zoning