Fifth Amendment Cases

Question 1

Court rules acquisition of Gettysburg battlefield served a valid public purpose.

First significant legal case dealing with historic preservation

Answer 1

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; U.S. Supreme Court (1896)

Question 2

Court found that if a regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking.

First takings ruling and defined a taking under the fifth amendment.

Answer 2

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (1922)

Question 3

Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose.

Court found that urban renwal is a valid public purpose.

Dept. store sued when Washington, D.C. tried to use eminent domain to beautify a blighted area in 1940s.

Upheld redevelopment program that allowed taking of land (eminent domain) and transfering for private development.

Answer 3

Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954)

Question 4

Court invalidated regualtion requiring installation of a public park on private property (eliminated income producing area). Court invalidated but did not rule it a taking that should receive compensation.

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Court found that NYC Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking.

Court found a taking is based on the extent of the diminuation of value, interference with investement-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.

Preservation Law (1965) desingating landmarks did not prevent future construction, just prevented future construction that did not enhance the terminal.

Court weighed the conomic impact of the regulation on investment-backed expectations and the character of the regulation to determine whether the reuglation deprives on of property rights.

Historic preservation fulfills valid public interest.

Sparked preservation movement and transfer of development rights process.

Answer 5

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. the City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978)

Question 6

Court held that city’s zoning designation (one residence per acre) was not a taking of the owner’s five acres (recently purchased).

Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density adn detemrined if furthered a legitimate government interest.

Answer 6

Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980)

Question 7

Court found the governmennt authorizing a permanent physical occupation of private proeprty constituted a taking and requires just compensation.

Answer 7

Loretto v. Telepromter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982)

Question 8

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 sue the government for damages.

Court found LA county could either purchase the property out-right or revoke the ordinance (no reconstruction on land previously devasted by a flood within previous year) and pay the church for its losses during the time of the trial.

Answer 8

First English Evangelical Luthern Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (1987).

Question 9

Court found requirement to leave 50% of underground coal in place (to support public structures, dwellings, and cemetaries) was not a taking.

Mines retained right to rest of “mineral estate” and found leaving a “support estate” to support hte above-ground “surface estate” furthered a legitimate public interest - not a taking as public interests were protected.

Answer 9

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Question 10

Court found that no taking ocurred when FCC issued federal statute that regulated rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles.

Answer 10

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Question 11

Court found that a legitimate interest is served by maintaining a “continious strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast” but that California must provide just compensation to beachfront property owners for the public use of land.

CA Coastal Comm. had required coastal buliding permit seekers maintian and provide beach access.

State said Nollan’s house would interfere with visual and pshychological public beach access. Permit only with public access. Court says taking.

Court says - If State really wants beach access, state must use ED and compensate land owners.

Answer 11

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Question 12

Court found a taking if there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left) after the regulation is in place (except where dereived from the state’s law of property and nuisance).

Court found that Lucas’ inability to build on his Isle of Palms lots (permanently habitable structures) constiuted a taking. Lucas had bought lots before state regulation put into place.

Answer 12

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992)

Question 13

Court overtuned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain (to create a greenway and bicycle path) by a commerical business that wanted to expand.

Court found there was not enough of a connection (rational nexus) between exaction requirement and development.

Must be a clear relationship between government requirement to deed property and the nature of the proposed development.

Lead to “rough proportionality” test. An exactment is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly propostional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use.

Gov. can require proerty to be deeded as a permit condition.

Answer 13

Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994)

Question 14

Court ruled applicant did not have to attempt to sell his developmental rights before claiming a regualtory taking.

Answer 14

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; U.S. Supreme Court

Question 15

Supreme Court held up a jury finding that City of Monterey’s repeated denials of a proposed development did not advance the public interest and the proposed devleopment satisfied both the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.

Repeated denials of a permit deprive an owner of all economically viable use of land.

Answer 15

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; U.S. Supreme Court (1999)

Question 16

Proposed beach club developer denied development applications in Rhode Island due to coastal salt marsh protections.

Court found landowner could NOT claim takings when he purchased the proeprty AFTER the regulations were put in place because he could still build a house instead of a beach club (not all economically viable uses gone).

Purchase after regulation adopiton does not barr all future takings claims. Court thought that gave the government too much power and could put a time limit on future takings.

Answer 16

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001)

Question 17

Court found that Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s development moratorium (while comprehensive plan was being created) did not constitue a taking without just compensation.

Answer 17

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; U.S. Supreme Court (2002)

Question 18

Court overturned a portion of Agins v. city of Tiburon.

Court found taking clause challenges had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furtheirng the government interest.

Answer 18

Lingle v. Chevron, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)

Question 19

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

Answer 19

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)

Question 20

Supreme Court ruled economic development is a valid reason for public use of eminent domain (public sale of land to private developers).

Land was not sold just for private gain; instead, land sold as part of adopted economic development plan.

Not a taking.

Fifth Amendment does not require “literal” public use; but the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose”

Kelo did not eable private redevelopment for profit - it was for an economic development plan. Calls back to Berman v. Parker.

Many states came out after and tried to undermine Kelo and pass legislation that local goverments were not able to enact ED for private redevelopment purposes.

Answer 20

Kelo v. City of New London; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)

Question 21

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

Answer 21

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inv. v. Florida Departement of Enironmental Protection (2009)

Question 22

Court found that the government may not conditionally approve land-use permits unless the conditions are connected to the landuse and approximatley proportional to the effects of the proposed land use.

Time/land/money burden on an applicant burdens the land and diminishes its value which violates the constiutional protections against having property taken without just compensation.

Answer 22

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