Property Ii Week 11 Multiple Choice

Front 1

In the City of Cooley there is a statute that says that it is illegal to operate in a brick factory. Hanson had operated a brick factory in Cooley for ten years before the statute was passed. Now that a subdivision has been built around the brick factory, the residents are complaining about noise, dust, and fumes. If the factory is sued in a nuisance action what will be the result?
a. The factory will be shut down, but the owner will be paid just compensation because there was a taking.
b. The factory will be shut down, but the owner will be indemnified by the developer because he came to the nuisance, if the balancing of the equities test is used.
c. The factory will be allowed to remain open since the developer came to the nuisance if the threshold test is used.
d. The factory will be shut down, and the owner will not receive just compensation because there has been no taking.

Back 1

d. The factory will be shut down, and the owner will not receive just compensation because there has been no taking.

Front 2

Pursuant to the categorical rule in Loretto.....
a. A regulation is not a taking if it is to prevent a common law nuisance.
b. a regulation is a taking if it results in a 100% economic loss of the landowner.
c. A regulation is a taking if it results in a permanent physical occupation of the premises.
d. A regulation is a taking if it results in a temporary physical occupation and a significant economic loss.

Back 2

C. As per Loretto, A regulation is a taking if it results in a permanent physical occupation of the premises.

Front 3

Eminent domain and regulatory takings differ in that...
a. With eminent domain the injured property owner gets just compensation, but with regulatory taking the injured party gets nothing.
b. With eminent domain the government intends to take someone's property, but with regulatory takings it is not intentional.
C. they are indistinguishable.
D. With eminent domain property is taken for the public use and given to the public, but with regulatory takings property is given to private parties.

Back 3

B. With eminent domain the government intends to take someone's property, but with regulatory takings it is not intentional.

Front 4

When does one use the Penn Central Balancing Test?

a. When there is not a Hadacheck situation.
b. When there is not a Lucas situation.
c. When there is not a Loretto situation.
d. All of the above.

Back 4

d. All of the above.

Front 5

The property as a whole analysis first stated by Justice Brandeis in his dissent in Mahon stands for the basic principle that:
a. Air rights can be separated from the rest of a building when determining the extent of the economic loss in regulatory takings analysis.
b. Mineral rights can be separated from the rest of a building when determining the extent of the economic loss in regulatory takings analysis.
c. The value of the property kept in place by the restriction must be compared with the value of the whole property.
d. The value of the property after the regulation must not be less than the value of the whole property before the regulation.

Back 5

D. The value of the property after the regulation must not be less than the value of the whole property before the regulation.

Front 6

Rich buys 2 lots on Beach Island for a million dollars. The lots are in between three other homes on well developed beachfront. Beach Island passes a law prohibiting further development on all beaches for environmental reasons. Rich sues claiming that his land has been "taken" by the law. The result is....
a. He loses because the land can be used for picknicking, camping, and mobile homes.
b. He loses because of the property as a whole analysis.
c. He wins because of the application of the Penn Central Balancing test.
D. He wins because of the fact that he was deprived of 100% of the economic value of his land.

Back 6

D. He wins because of the fact that he was deprived of 100% of the economic value of his land.

Front 7

2. Developer buys land and before he can build on it, the population density allowed in the area changes by virtue of a zoning ordinance. Developer gets mad and files suit in federal court immediately because time is money and he wants this over quickly. Will developer be able to succeed in his assertion that the regulation has created a taking?

Back 7

D. No, because he must first seek a final administrative decision and pursue a state court action.

Front 8

3. If the Developer from #2 had instead asked for a variance, and been denied one, and then went to state court and reserved the relevant issues for federal court, would he be successful in his takings claims then?
a. Yes, because his claim is now ripe.
b. No, everyone is entitled to go to federal court.
c. No, because inverse condemnation claims and regulatory takings claims are essentially the same thing.
D. Yes, because two bites at the apple is always permissible.

Back 8

C. No, because inverse condemnation claims and regulatory takings claims are essentially the same thing.

Front 9

The two categorical rules from regulatory takings are...
a. The balancing test and the utilitarian test.
b. The utilitarian test and the threshold test.
c. The unnecessary hardship test and the practical difficulties test.
D. The permanent physical invasion test and the 100% economic taking test.

Back 9

D. the permanent physical invasion test and the 100% economic taking test.

Front 10

Regarding the Penn Central Balancing Test,
a. Each element must be proven to assert a taking.
b. Only elements 2 and 3 must be proven to assert a taking.
c. All of the elements get weighed in order for the court to determine if a taking has occurred.
D. The test needs to be done with the threshold test to get a final determination.

Back 10

C. All of the elements get weighed in order for the court to determine if a taking has occurred.