Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

AICP Review 2019 > Cases and Law Topics > Flashcards

Cases and Law Topics Flashcards

(62 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Keystone Bituminous Coal Assoc. v. DeBenedictis

A

(1987) Main issue: Taking. Not a taking; because all land value was not lost in regulations on coal mining.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Federal Communications Commission v. Florida Power Corporation

A

(1987) Main issue: Takings. Utility poles were acting as a taking per say because they were a physical occupation of property.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry. Co.

A

(1896) Trolley to be built on grounds of Gettysburg Battlefiled; which was fought against but was built in the end

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Miller v. Schoene

A

(1928) Main issue: Taking. Just compenstation for requiring removal of property. Prop owner required to remove trees that could give nearby orchards a disease. Given $$ to do so.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of NY

A

(1976) Main issue: Taking. Ruled that transfer of development rights would be inappropriate to compensate for a taking.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Welch v. Swasey

A

(1909) Main issue: Planning. Upheld that state of MA could limit the height of buildings in a certain quarter of the city; and it did not violate the Constitution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

“Bundle of sticks” metaphor in regards to property rights

A

Each stick is a right. Rights, like sticks, are dynamic; can be changed over time; through statues and case laws. Together; they add up to your full property rights.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Private nuisance

A

An individual’s conduct interferes with another individuals “quiet enjoyment of their land”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Public nuisance

A

An individuals’ conduct intereferes with the public’s right to health; safety; peace; morals; comfort or convenience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Hadacheck v. Sabastian

A

(1915) Main topic: Nuisance. In LA; pre-existing brickyard was delcared public nuisance after city divided into districts. Land lost value with new districts; but court upheld - was a nuisance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Police power

A

Inherent power of government to protect public health; safety and welfare

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Levels of government with police power

A

State gov = has it inherently. Fed gov = only specifically enumerated powers. Local gov = depends.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Dillion’s Rule

A

Local governments have no power unless a state explicity gives to them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Home Rule

A

Local government has all powers except those reserved by the state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Munn v. Illinois

A

(1876) Main topics: Due process and equal protection. The Court upheld the power of state governments to regulate private industries that affect “the common good”.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Three Expressed Federal Powers from the Constitution

A

Commerce Clause = power to regulate commerce among states; Treaty Power = exclusive power to enter into treaties with other governments; Income Tax = funding the federal government

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

1st Amendment

A

Freedom of speech and of religion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

5th Amendment

A

Includes that no person shall “be deprived of life; liberty; or property; without due process of law” by federal gov. Protection of private property rights; and basis for TAKINGS and DUE PROCESS court cases.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

13th Amendment

A

Abolished slavery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

14th Amendment

A

Includes that no person shall “be deprived of life; liberty; or property; without due process of law” by state gov. Protection of private property rights; and basis for TAKINGS and DUE PROCESS court cases.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Three Types of a Taking

A

Direct physical invasion or seizure (eminent domain); regulatory interferance or an exaction; indirect government action (this one is not compensatable)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon

A

(1922) Main topic: Taking. Coal company sells subsurface rights; many years later statue changes to not allow mining below housing. NOT a taking bc the residential builder didn’t lose out; the coal company did. Establishes the right of regulatory taking.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Items Considered in a Taking

A

Does the use of police power go too far? Was there reasonable investment-backed expectation of value? Was the gov action legit? What was the degree of lost value? Recall bundled rights - if all rights not lost; its not a neces. a taking

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Penn Central v. Transportation Co. of New York

A

(1978) Main issue: Taking. NY new historic preservation law prevented owner from building; but their development rights were transferred. NOT a taking because they did not lose out.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Loretto v. Teleprompter CATV
(1982) Main issue: Taking.Showed that even minor invasions are per-say takings.
26
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. LA County
(1987) Main issue: Taking. Temporay moratorum on building prevented church from rebuilding camp. NOT a taking because it was temporary.
27
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
(1992) Main issue: Taking. Owner denied building permits after hurricane. TAKING - compensation is required when regulations deny all use of property.
28
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
(2000) Mian issue: Taking. Owner denied building permit during a planning moratorium and complicated TDR process. NOT a taking bc did not lose all value.
29
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
(2001) Main issue: Taking. Land has a building permit in a coastal wetland; but state changes regulations and then land is sold. NOT a taking bc land did not use all value.
30
Berman v. Parker
(1954) Main issue: Taking. DC urban renewal project - NOT a taking. Established that aesthetics and economics are legit gov reasons for eminent domain.
31
Kelo v. City of New London
(2005) Main issue: Taking. Entire neighborhood condemned for econ devel; not blighted. NOT a taking bc for legit public use.
32
Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Dept of Environmental Protection
(2010) Main issue: Taking. Court took away rights through a new interpretation of the law. TAKING.
33
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
(1987) Main issue: Exaction. Owner required to leave paralell beach access justified by needing to preserve views. TAKING. Established 1st part of Dual Nexus Test - have to prove "essential nexus" or rational relationship
34
Dolan v. City of Tigard
(1997) Main issue: Exaction. Owner required to set aside 20% of parcel for bike path. TAKING. Established 2nd part of Dual Nexus Test - rough proportionality
35
Dual Nexus Test
Gov must prove an essential nexus (aka rational relationship) between the requirement and state interest; and there must be rough propotionality
36
Koontz v. St John’s River WMD
(2013) Main issue: Exaction. Building permit denied and no physical taking; but money was required. TAKING due to the extent of the money gov was asking for
37
Due Process is established by which Amendments?
5th and 14th (fed and state; respectively)
38
City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises
(1976) Main issue: Due Process. Unpopular zoning overturned by a popular referendum. Was this OK due process? YES bc the zoning was a legislative action
39
Fasano v. Board of Commers Wash. Co
(1973) Main issue: Due Process. Recognized that in some states, zoning is quasi-judicial. A board of county commissioners changed zoning, court overturned it bc it wasn’t in line with comp plan - but it was within their purview to modify zoning.
40
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Devel Corp
(1977) Main issue: Equal Protecttion. No public housing being built in suburbs; does this violate equal protection? NO
41
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
(1974) Main issue: Equal Protection. Town wanted to limit student housing; so redefined “family”. And court upheld the law. Students are not a protected class.
42
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center
(1985) Main issue: Equal Protection. Community limited housing for mentally incapacitated people; court overturned the law via equal protection.
43
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech
(2000) Main issue: Equal Protection. Owner given extra hoops to jump through; claiimed undo animosity. Proved you can be a protected class of one.
44
Civil Rights Act of 1871
Adopted statue that enforced 14th amendment. If you can prove the government has discriminated you against you can get compensation.
45
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams
(2005) Main issue: Equal Protection. Owner denied permit to build radio tower. Lost bc congress did provide alternative settlement procedures that he didn't follow.
46
Civil Rights Act of 1968
AKA Fair Housing Act. Prohibits discrimination in sale or rental of housing based on race. Added gener in 1974 and families with children in 1988.
47
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House
(1994) Main issue: Equal Protection. Law that stated 5+ people in a home illegal if from different families considered unjust bc it did not further safety or public uses
48
Southern Burlington NAACP v. Town of Mt. Laurel
(1975) Main issue: Equal Protection. City was only zoning for PUDs; NAACP used state law to require fair share of low income housing across the state. Est. concept of exclusionary zoning.
49
Young v. American Mini Theater
(1976) Main issue: Free speech; adult uses. Challenged dispersal of adult uses. Law upheld - not all free speech is equal; and its OK to require dispersal of adult uses.
50
City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters
(1986) Main issue: Free speech; adult uses. Challenged distance requirements for adult uses. Law upheld.
51
Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp v. Public Service Comm
(1980) Main issue: Free speech; signs. State claimed public utility couldn't avertize; Feds overturned. Free speech 4-part test established.
52
Metromedia v. City of San Diego
(1981) Main issue: Free speech; signs. SD tried to ban all billboards; not OK; non-commerical could not be banned.
53
Larkin v. Grendel’s Den
(1982) Main issue: Free speech; religion. Church given veto power over a liquor license; not OK. They do not have police power.
54
Lemon v. Kurtzman
(1971) Main issue: Free speech; religion. State can't fund relgiious education.
55
Oregon Employment Division v. Smith
(1990) Main issue: Free speech; religion. State denied unemployment insurance for Native Americans fired for smoking peyote when not on the job.
56
RLUPIA
Religious Land Uses and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000). Designed to prevent discrimination against free exercise of religion by citizens vested with land use discretion.
57
Civil Liberties for Urban Believers Club v. City of Chicago
(2003) Main issue: Free speech; religion. City sued for making it more difficult to build churches in residential areas. OK bc it applied to all religious groups and wasn't an extraordianry burden.
58
Mulger v. Kansas
(1887) Main issue: Zoning. New law delcares liquor sales a nuisance and brewery gets fined. NOT a taking and was due process.
59
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co
(1926) Main issue: Zoning. First case to uphold zoning - established concetp of public welfare via the city's use of police power. NOT a taking.
60
Nectow v. City of Cambridge
(1928) Min issue: Zoning. Contract to sell proerty had to be voided when zoning changed. TAKING bc value lost.
61
Golden v. Town of Ramapo
(1972) Main issue: Zoning. City not givning building permits until ready to build utilities. NOT a taking.
62
Construction Industry Assoc. v. City of Petaluma
(1975) Main issue: Zoning. local government trying to control development with permit rationing to work with utility setup. NOT a taking.

AICP Review 2019 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions