Case Quiz Flashcards
Welsh v. Swasey (1909) concluded what about regulating construction?
a. Building height limitations are unconstitutional if there is no comprehensive plan in place
b. Communities can restrict the number of building permits granted each year if reasonable
c. A building height limitation of 80 to 100 feet does not deprive the property owner of profitable use
d. Zoning can be used to strengthen a church’s ability to provide needed community services
c. A building height limitation of 80 to 100 feet does not deprive the property owner of profitable use
In Berman v. Parker (1954), the court declared which of the following?
a.
Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose
b.
Court validated state and local government actions that properly protect the public health, morals and safety
c.
Aesthetics alone can not be used to support eminent domain
d.
Aesthetics is a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare
d. Aesthetics is a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare
Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976) did which of the following?
a.
Distance requirements for adult uses must serve local interests
b.
Communities can created zones for unwanted uses but only if states consider this a valid use of the police power
c.
Communities can zone for location of adult entertainment establishments without necessarily violating the First Amendment
d.
Upheld power to prohibit more than two unrelated individuals from residing together as a single family; thus extended concept of zoning under police power to include community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles
c.
Communities can zone for location of adult entertainment establishments without necessarily violating the First Amendment
The verdict of the Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Development Corp (1977) concluded which of the following?
a.
Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of the region’s growth
b.
Regulation effectively denying housing to people based on race, immigration status or national origin is unconstitutional
c.
Regulation can not discriminate based on race, immigration status or national origin
d.
Law that required affordable housing subsidy
c.
Regulation can not discriminate based on race, immigration status or national origin
In the 1932 case Bove v Donner-Hanna Coke Corp., the courts declared:
a.
Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking
b.
Material annoyance of a neighbor can not be used as a basis of legal action
c.
If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking
d.
Owner not permitted to make an unreasonable use of premises to the material annoyance of a neighbor, if the latter’s enjoyment of life or property is materially lessened
d.
Owner not permitted to make an unreasonable use of premises to the material annoyance of a neighbor, if the latter’s enjoyment of life or property is materially lessened
In the 1987 case Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, the Supreme Court came to which of the following conclusions?
a.
Land use exactions are not authorized by the constitution
b.
State interest is not a valid factor in determining whether a taking has occurred
c.
Aesthetics can satisfy advancing a legitimate public interest
d.
Must be a nexus between state’s interest and exaction
d. Must be a nexus between state’s interest and exaction
The court decision Calvert Cliffs v. U.S. Atomic Enegry Commission 1971:
a.
Created a nexus between state’s interest and exaction
b.
Overturned approval of nuclear plant because the AEC did not follow NEPA; gave NEPA strength
c.
Declared that state interest is not a valid factor in determining whether a taking has occurred
d.
Weakened NEPA because it required governmental burden of proof
b.
Overturned approval of nuclear plant because the AEC did not follow NEPA; gave NEPA strength
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) determined that:
a.
If regulation causes a physical invasion of privacy then it is a taking
b.
State interest is not a valid factor in determining whether a taking has occurred
c.
Privacy intrusion should be considered a taking if it involve local government actions
d.
Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated
a.
If regulation causes a physical invasion of privacy then it is a taking
Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma (1975) saw the court reach which of the following conclusions?
a.
Required a reasonable relationship between impact and expenditure
b.
Communities can restrict the number of building permits granted each year through the power of eminent domain
c.
Required a reasonable relationship between conditions and impact
d.
Communities can restrict the number of building permits granted each year if reasonable
d.
Communities can restrict the number of building permits granted each year if reasonable
Metromedia v. City of San Diego (1981) decided which of the following?
a.
Communities can zone for location of adult entertainment establishments without necessarily violating the First Amendment
b.
If an ordinance places tighter restrictions on non-commercial billboards than on commercial ones it is likely not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
c.
If an ordinance places tighter restrictions on non-commercial billboards than on commercial ones it violates the First Amendment
d.
Distance requirements for adult uses must serve local interests
c.
If an ordinance places tighter restrictions on non-commercial billboards than on commercial ones it violates the First Amendment
First English Evangelical Lutheran Free Church v. County of Los Angeles (1987) decided the following about takings:
a.
Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking
b.
Forgiveness of legal fees is valid compensation for a temporary taking
c.
Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated
d.
Development moratoriums should be considered a taking unless there is compensation
a.
Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking
In 1990, the Supreme Court verdict for the case Cohen v. Des Plains concluded which of the following?
a.
Zoning can be used to strengthen a church’s ability to provide needed community services
b.
Building height limitations are unconstitutional if there is no comprehensive plan in place
c.
Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments; Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn’t
d.
A building height limitation of 80 to 100 feet does not deprive the property owner of profitable use
c.
Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments; Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn’t
Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) concluded that:
a.
Communities can zone for location of adult entertainment establishments without necessarily violating the First Amendment
b.
Cities cannot define “family” so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other
c.
Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose
d.
Local governments have the power to determine “family” definition and how it is applied in a zoning ordinance
b.
Cities cannot define “family” so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore (1976) declared that:
a.
Required a reasonable relationship between conditions and impact
b.
Regulations that prevent a jurisdiction’s achieving regional growth must require fair share apportionment
c.
Court allowed time phasing of future residential growth until performance conditions were met
d.
Phased residential growth can not be tied to performance criteria unless permitted by state legislation
c.
Court allowed time phasing of future residential growth until performance conditions were met
Which of the following conclusions did Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) come to about takings?
a.
Use restrictions are an unconstitutional use of the police power
b.
Restrictions on use are not a taking provided they do not go too far
c.
The restriction of uses is not a taking
d.
Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking
c.
The restriction of uses is not a taking
The 1987 court case Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictus concluded…
a.
State interest is not a valid factor in determining whether a taking has occurred
b.
If regulation causes a physical invasion of privacy then it is a taking
c.
Distance requirements for adult uses must serve local interests
d.
Nature of state’s interest in regulation is a critical factor in determining whether a taking has occurred
d.
Nature of state’s interest in regulation is a critical factor in determining whether a taking has occurred
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (I) (1972) concluded which of the following?
a.
Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of the region’s growth (New Jersey)
b.
Regulation can not discriminate based on race, immigration status or national origin
c.
Regulation effectively denying housing to people based on race, immigration status or national origin is unconstitutional
d.
New Jersey law that required affordable housing subsidy
a.
Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of the region’s growth (New Jersey)
The Supreme Court decided which of the following in the case Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)?
a.
Zoning ordinance was upheld but only if owners were properly compensated
b.
Aesthetics is a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare
c.
Upheld zoning classifications only if authorized by state
d.
Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose
d.
Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922) concluded that:
a.
Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated
b.
Restrictions on use are not a taking provided they do not go too far
c.
Use restrictions are an unconstitutional use of the police power
d.
If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking
b.
Restrictions on use are not a taking provided they do not go too far
The court case Mugler v. Kansas (1887) determined:
a.
Communities can zone for location of adult entertainment establishments without necessarily violating the First Amendment
b.
Court validated state and local government ability to implement zoning regulations
c.
Aesthetics is a valid reason to support actions taken for the public welfare
d.
Court validated state and local government actions that properly protect the public health, morals, and safety
d.
Court validated state and local government actions that properly protect the public health, morals, and safety
In 1972, the courts decided that _______ in the case: Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo.
a.
Zoning can be used to strengthen a church’s ability to provide needed community services
b.
Local governments can not penalize development in an effort to provide revenue for services
c.
Local governments can condition development approval on the provision of services
d.
A three-year government moratorium on development is not a ‘taking’ of private property that requires payment of compensation
c.
Local governments can condition development approval on the provision of services
In Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997), it was decided that:
a.
Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking
b.
Court validated state and local government ability to implement zoning regulations
c.
Zoning ordinance was upheld but only if owners were properly compensated
d.
If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking
a.
Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking
In 1986, the case Renton v. Playtime Theaters Inc. helped the courts determine that:
a.
Aesthetics can satisfy advancing a legitimate public interest
b.
Distance separation or concentration requirements for adult uses is OK if the regulation serves a substantial governmental interest and leaves open alternative methods of communication
c.
Nature of state’s interest in regulation is a critical factor in determining whether a taking has occurred
d.
Distance requirements for adult uses must serve local interests
b.
Distance separation or concentration requirements for adult uses is OK if the regulation serves a substantial governmental interest and leaves open alternative methods of communication
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) concluded which of the following?
a.
Land use exactions are not authorized by the constitution
b.
Restrictions on use constitute a taking and must be compensated
c.
If zoning deprives an owner of intended property use it must be considered a regulatory taking
d.
Restrictions on use are legal as long as there is still some commercial value
d.
Restrictions on use are legal as long as there is still some commercial value
