Court Cases

Question 1

Southern Burlington NAACP v. Mount Laurel

Answer 1

1975 - Court held that the zoning ordinance, which effectively deprived adequate housing for the poor and discriminated against them, was unconstitutional and invalid. Zoning ordinance was considered exclusionary for depriving poor of adequate housing. “Mount Laurel Doctrine.”

Question 2

Agins v. Tiburon

Answer 2

1980 - Application of general zoning law to a property effects a taking if the ordinance doesn’t substantially advance legitimate state interest or denies an ower economically viable use of their land. In this case the zoning ordinance substantially advanced legitimate governmental goals: protection of residents from the ill effects of urbanization. Supreme Court affirmed that the zoning ordinance on their face do not take the property without just compensation.

Question 3

Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.

Answer 3

1976 - Opened up the possibility to control pornography via land use.
Special requirements applicable to adult theatres and bookstores upheld.

Question 4

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

Answer 4

1982 - Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimis.
State law that required landlords to permit installation of cable television facilities on their property constituted a taking because it was a physical invasion of permanent duration. Permanence is key.

Question 5

Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon

Answer 5

1922 - A statute forbidding coal mining under private dwellings or streets in areas where the right to mine is reserved is unconstitutional, as a taking of property without due process. If a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking and compensation must be paid.

Question 6

Penn Central Transportation v. City of New York

Answer 6

1978 - Famous TDR Example. Application of landmark preservation law is not a taking; restriction of use of air space above terminal is not a taking since property can still be used for original purpose. Also about the denominator problem–what is the denominator of the ownership fraction?

Question 7

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Answer 7

1987 - Started “Essential Nexus” test. CCC made conditional approval on Nollan’s beachfront property if there was an easement for public beach. Court found that if CCC wants an easement, they should compensate the Nolan’s.

Question 8

Spur Industries v. Del Webb

Answer 8

1972 - AZ Supreme Court - Spur’s cattle feed lots were considered a nuisance to the Sun City development of Del Webb. An injunction was granted holding the lots were a public nuisance, but Sun City “came to a nuisance” and was required to pay relocation and damages to Spur.

Question 9

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

Answer 9

1926 - Ruled zoning as a reasonable extension of Village’s police power and speculation was not a valid basis for a taking claim.

Question 10

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles

Answer 10

1987 - 5th Amendment case. A church camp was flooded and they were not allowed to use their campground due to a 6 year prohibition on building in a flood zone. Considered a taking and ruled that temporary takings are still takings.

Question 11

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Answer 11

1992 - 5th Amendment Case. The Beachfront Management Act rendered Lucas’ property valueless. SCOTUS ruled against lower court saying this was a taking because it deprived all economic use, and started the “Total Takings Test.”

Question 12

Dolan v. City of Tigard

Answer 12

1994 - 5th Amendment case. Tigard set conditional approval on the expansion of Dolan’s store if he provided a public greenway and bike lane along the property’s creek. The court found the City’s request reasonable passing the “Essential Nexus” test, but the degree of the condition was excessive, and ruled a taking on those grounds. Led to “Rough Proportionality” test.

Question 13

Hadacheck v. Sebastian

Answer 13

1915 - Hadcheck was a brickmaker in a residential area of LA. Considered a violation of the ordinance, not a taking, and a proper use of police power.

Question 14

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Answer 14

2002 - 5th Amendment case. Moratorium on the construction of homes for approximately 32 months while developing a Comprehensive Plan was not a taking.

Question 15

Golden v. Ramapo

Answer 15

1972 - Challenged performance zoning. Ramapo restricted residential growth until services and facilities could support it. Golden was considered within its rights to do so.

Question 16

Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope

Answer 16

1968 - PA Supreme Court - Court upheld that a PUD was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and was not considered illegal spot zoning. Neighbors were plaintiffs and did not want to see Cheney’s development.

Question 17

Metromedia v. San Diego

Answer 17

1981 - 1st Amendment case - Prohibitions on billboards were struck down because they did not pursue a sufficient government interest. Ruled that billboards were allowed and that commercial billboards could not be treated more harshly than non-commercial ones.

Question 18

Mt. Laurel II

Answer 18

1983 - Supreme Court of NJ - Follows up on Mt. Laurel I and gave teeth to it. Required municipalities to build their fair share of affordable housing.

Question 19

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.

Answer 19

1977 - 14th Amendment Case - A Chicago suburb had a zoning ordinance that practically worked as exclusionary zoning by only allowing single-family homes. The Court of Appeals ruled this unconstitutional because of its obvious discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court reversed this.

Question 20

Rohn v. City of Visalia

Answer 20

1989 - CA Court of Appeals - The court ruled that if the City wants a portion of Rohn’s property to correct the adjacent street it must pay for Rohn’s land. A conditional approval and permit issuance could not be used to make this street correction.

Question 21

Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates

Answer 21

2002 - The Town granted conditional approval of a residential subdivision based on the developer rebuilding an abutting road. The Court found this as a taking because the Town could not prove the road improvements had a relationship to the subdivision.

Question 22

Sparks v. Douglas County

Answer 22

1995 - WA Supreme Court - Question of whether a Right-of-Way Dedication as a conditional approval is a taking or capricious. It was not a taking based on the “Rough Proportionality” test (Dolan test).

Question 23

Williams v. City of Central

Answer 23

A moratorium of the development of a theater in
a gaming district for 10 months was not a taking. The theater was purchased while the area changed to a gaming district. Interim regulation is not a taking unless it causes extraordinary delay.

Question 24

Millbrae Association for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae

Answer 24

1968 - CA Court of Appeals - The Planning Commission exceeded its authority in approving a Precise Plan since it differed substantially from the Project Plan.

Question 25

Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth v. METRO

Answer 25

2002 - Tested the Urban Growth Boundary in Portland. The Court upheld the addition of 354 acres to the buildable land within the UGB.

Question 26

Dateline Builders, Inc. v City of Santa Rosa

Answer 26

1983 - The City could refuse services as a public utility. The extension of a sewer line into a development outside the City boundaries would be inconsistent with the City's plan. Growth management was considered a proper use of Police Power.

Question 27

Palm Beach County v. William Wright

Answer 27

1994 - FL Supreme Court - Land zoned in the Comprehensive Plan for a future highway restricted other land uses. This does not constitute a taking. The adoption of the proposed map was constitutional because it was planning for the future best interest of the County. Individual properties within the map may be takings and would be compensated, but the whole map was not a taking.

Question 28

Gardner v. NJ Pinelands Commission

Answer 28

1991 - Restrictions on land use in an environmentally sensitive area are only a taking if they deny all practice use. Gardner was still able to farm with environmental regulations. Economic burdens of the regulations were spread to property owners within the entire Comprehensive Plan area.

Question 29

Buchanan v. Simplot Feeders

Answer 29

1998 - US District Court - Buchanan's neighbors were always a feedlot, but Simplot purchased it in 1991 and ramped up production. Nuisance protection from right-to-farm laws must be applied narrowly and cautiously and should not insulate agriculture, especially if the agriculture was there before the nuisance activity was established.

Question 30

State ex. rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkley

Answer 30

1970 - Stoyanoff tried to build a house with modern architecture. The Board denied a permit due to nonconformance of style. The Court ordered the City to issue the permit because the zoning ordinance denied Stoyanoff's use of property without due process. The Ordinance was constitutional according to SCOTUS because property value rules are necessary and aesthetics are reason enough to protect those.

Question 31

Anderson v. City of Issaquah

Answer 31

1993 - WA Appellate Court - 5th Amendment Case. Unreasonable to expect applicants for variances to pay for repetitive revisions to comply with unarticulated and unpublished statements from the community. Anderson had made all the changes and was still denied.

Question 32

Figarsky v. Historic District Commission

Answer 32

1976 - Court recognizes aesthetics as a proper use of police power. In Norwich, CT, the attempted demolition of a historic building was denied. It was not considered a taking unless it destroys or greatly reduces property value.

Question 33

Fred F. Finch Investing v. City of New York

Answer 33

1976 - 5th Amendment Case - NYC rezoned two private parks of the Tudor City Apartment Complex as public parks. Though it caused the owner a disproportionate economic burden, it was not a compensated taking--the regulation was just removed.

Question 34

Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp.

Answer 34

1932 - NY Supreme Court - Private nuisance case. Bove's building existed before the Coke Corporation but the Coke Corporation's usual business activities resulted in reasonable legal pollution.

Question 35

Ben Lomond Inc. v. Anchorage

Answer 35

1988 - AK Supreme Court - Lomond wanted to renovate dilapidated building. Anchorage mistakenly issued building permits and revoked them. The owner never repealed the revocation or sought a variance. The inaction deprived the City of the opportunity to make a factual record of the error. The owner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the building was demolished.

Question 36

City of Los Angeles v. Gage

Answer 36

1954 - CA Appellate Court - Zoning of Gage's location was changed from Commercial to Residential. Zoning ordinance eliminated nonconforming uses and was constitutional in its use of police power. Gage was given time to move his plumbing business and constitutionality was considered dependent on relative public gain compared to private loss.

Question 37

Krause v. City of Royal Oak

Answer 37

1968 - 5th Amendment Case. Krause owned a Single Family home and the City wanted to rezone it to Multi-Family. The Supreme Court ruled that the City can regulate density.

Question 38

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas

Answer 38

1974 - 14th Amendment Case. The Court upheld the constitutionality of zoning that limited the number of unrelated individuals. Based on SUNY students in house that got evicted.

Question 39

State of NJ v. Dennis Baker

Answer 39

1979 - NJ Supreme Court - Redefined "Family." The ordinance was considered too narrow in its definition, and families can live together as long as they pose no threat to the style of family in the zoning.

Question 40

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

Answer 40

1977 - Moore's grandchild lived with her in East Cleveland. Zoning prohibited this. It was declared unconstitutional because it violates due process by intruding on family sanctity and not advancing city goals.

Question 41

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

Answer 41

1985 - Special Use Permits Case. Cleburne Living Center was not permitted to build a group home. The Court said the ordinance was not constitutional via the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Intellectually Disabled people cannot be considered suspect.

Question 42

Johnson v. Town of Edgartown

Answer 42

1997 - Plaintiff claimed the town's 3-acre zoning requirement was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Court found it was reasonable for the purpose of protecting Edgartown Pond, which was rational and promoted public welfare.

Question 43

Ensign Bickford Realty Corp. v. City Council

Answer 43

1997 - CA Court of Appeals - Property was zoned CN when bought in 1968 but rezoned to R-4 in 1974. Bickford was denied the right to change zoning back to Commercial. The Court ruled that the City acted reasonably and established a rational basis for the denial.

Question 44

City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc.

Answer 44

1985 - 1st Amendment Case. Adult theatres were prohibited within 1000 feet of a residential zone with churches, parks, or schools. Zoning was unconstitutional because instead of an outright ban it told the theater where to locate. Therefore a time, place, and manner regulation.

Question 45

First Assembly of God of Naples v. Collier County

Answer 45

1994 - FL Court of Appeals - The Church claimed the local zoning violated due process and the free exercise clause of 1A. The church ran a homeless shelter which was called a nonconforming use by the County. The Court upheld the ordinance because it was neutral and not meant to oppress as it allowed homeless shelters, just not in that zone.

Question 46

Huntington Branch NAACP v. Town of Huntington

Answer 46

1988 - Fair Housing Act case. Zoning ordinance restricted multi-family housing to a predominantly black area and a MF building could not be constructed in a white area. Found that discrimination did not need to be intended but if it's the result it still violates FHA.

Question 47

Larkin v. State of Michigan Department of Social Services

Answer 47

1995 - Adult foster care facility in Westland, MI. A Licensing Act from the State violated the protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but didn't violate the Fair Housing Act because the Michigan Law could not be waived.

Question 48

Puritan-Greenfield Association v. Leo

Answer 48

1967 - Michigan Appellate Court - Leo wanted to turn a Single Family Home into a family house and medical clinic. Leo applied for a parking variance citing hardship. The Court found this unsubstantiated and did not grant the variance.

Question 49

Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Southland Corp.

Answer 49

1982 - VA Supreme Court - Distinguished "quick service food" from grocery stores. Southland runs 7-11s which must be free-standing. Fairfax had additional construction fees for free-standing buildings in commercial zones and for special use permits. Prevented construction. Court upheld the zoning but called it "debatable."

Question 50

Crooked Creek Conservation & Gun Club v. Hamilton County North Board of Zoning & Samuel R. Hiser

Answer 50

1997 - Zoning board denied gun club's application for special exception in property zoned for agricultural and residential uses based on public hazard and noise nuisances. Denial was upheld.

Question 51

Western Land Equities Inc. v. City of Logan

Answer 51

1980 - UT Supreme Court - About retroactive application of zoning laws. Applicant for subdivision permit is entitled to favorable action if the application conforms to the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of the application, not the changed one.

Question 52

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

Answer 52

1978 - First interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. Protected the Snail Darter by prohibiting completion of the Telico Dam.

Question 53

Berman v. Parker

Answer 53

1954 - Eminent Domain case. Interpreted Takings Clause of 5th Amendment. Holds that private property can be taken for public reasons with just compensation. Aesthetics and redevelopment are valid reasons.

Question 54

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe

Answer 54

1971 - Basic legal framework for suits against administrative agencies. "Hard Look" Doctrine for environmental reviews. Private citizens and conservation stopped the DOT from building a highway through Overton Park in Memphis. DOT could not build the highway if "feasible and prudent" alternatives exist.

Question 55

Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission

Answer 55

1971 - First interpretation of NEPA in DC Circuit Court. Incorporated NEPA as enforceable.

Question 56

Sierra Club v. Morton

Answer 56

1972 - Allowed environmental citizen suits to discipline resource agencies.

Question 57

Just v. Marinette County

Answer 57

1972 - Integrated public land trusts and upheld them as constitutional. Shoreland zoning ordinance created conservancy for recreation in inland lakes. Landowner has no absolute and unlimited right to change natural character of the land.

Question 58

Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County

Answer 58

1972 - Attempt to rezone land to get a mobile park using PUD. Because a PUD rezone determined the rights of only a few landowners, it was adjudicatory and not legislative. The burden of justifying zoning change goes to the owner, who must show its agreement with Comprehensive Plan. Spot zoning meets public needs and the need must best be served when rezoning happens.

Question 59

Williamson County Regional Planning Council v. Hamilton Bank

Answer 59

1985 - Claim that the agency's land-use requirements violated Just Compensation and Due Process clauses. Not ripe for adjudication and no decision ever made.

Question 60

Knick v. Township of Scott, PA

Answer 60

2019 - Overruled Williamson. Allows taking compensations to be addressed directly through Federal Court. Farmland was claimed as a cemetery through zoning and required a right-of-way. Knick beat zoning.

Question 61

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon

Answer 61

1995 - Applied Endangered Species Act to land development. Secretary of Interior's "harm" definition to endangered species is valid when "significant modification of habitat degrades and kills wildlife."

Question 62

Kuehne v. Town of East Hartford

Answer 62

1950 - CT Supreme Court - Because zoning must agree with the Comprehensive Plan, spot zoning is contrary to the plan.

Question 63

Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder

Answer 63

1993 - FL Supreme Court - Because zoning is quasi-judicial in its review process, it must meet stricter judicial review standards.

Question 64

Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown

Answer 64

1951 - Power of the village to amend its basic zoning ordinance in a manner that promotes the general welfare cannot be questioned.

Question 65

Collard v. Incorporated Village of Flower Hill

Answer 65

1981 - When the rezoning is conditional on no new construction without consent, the City does not have to consent to the construction or give a valid reason for the rejection.

Question 66

Haines v. City of Phoenix

Answer 66

1986 - AZ Supreme Court - The court affirmed the authority to rezone height regulations.

Question 67

City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises

Answer 67

1976 - Respondent tried to rezone a parcel. During the process City voters changed the charter for a 55% ratification for zoning approval. The delegation of power to a referendum did not violate the applicant's due process.

Question 68

Garipay v. Town of Hanover

Answer 68

1976 - NH Supreme Court - Subdivision was rejected because of the inadequacy of a town-owned road. The court found offsite actors can be taken into consideration. Court rejected argument that the proposed development was not “scattered or premature” because prematurity is a relative rather than an absolute concept.

Question 69

Baker v. Planning Board of Framingham

Answer 69

1967 - MA Supreme Court - Planning Board may not exercise authority to disapprove a plan so a town may continue to use owner's land as a water storage area and deprive the owner of reasonable use.

Question 70

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

Answer 70

1984 - Allowed state to use eminent domain for land that was overly private and redistribute it for public residents.

Question 71

Kelo v. City of New London

Answer 71

2005 - 5th Amendment Case. Eminent domain could be used to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The condemned property that the City allowed to be transferred because the Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan was clearly in public interest.

Question 72

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

Answer 72

2001 - 5th Amendment Case. Landowner was denied permit to infill wetlands. Landowner purchased the title after the effective date of the legislation. Court ruled that regulatory taking claims are still allowed after enactment.

Question 73

Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District

Answer 73

2013 - 5th Amendment Case. Koontz had to pay to fix drainage to build a mall. Money was considered property and money extraction is subject to "essential nexus" test.

Question 74

City of Edmonds v. Oxford House

Answer 74

1995 - Fair Housing Act case. Looked at the building of group homes and the definition of "family" where it was subject to FHA.

Question 75

Lingle v. Chevron, USA

Answer 75

2005 - 5th Amendment Case. Hawaii enacted rent control on Chevron-owned gas stations to keep gas prices down. Chevron argued under Agins but the court redirected it to a Due Process case. Ruled in favor of Hawaii because not all economically viable use was taken.

Question 76

Stop the Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Answer 76

2010 - 5th Amendment Case. Beachfront property owners sued to stop the replacement of sand post-hurricanes. Not a taking because submerged land was still owned by the State even after new sand was added. States can infill sand without infringing on property rights in littoral areas.

Question 77

Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Answer 77

2015 - 1st Amendment Case. Gilbert had restrictions on ideological and political signs. A church had directional signs up for events and was fined. Court recognized that nonpolitical signs were treated more unfairly than political signs.

Question 78

Murr v. Wisconsin

Answer 78

2017 - Is a regulatory taking on one lot a taking of both? Leads to three factor denominator test: 1) Whether state treats land as single or multiple parcels 2) Physical characteristics of property 3) Value of property under the challenged regulation. This particular case was not a taking.

Question 79

Munn v. Illinois

Answer 79

1876 - 14th Amendment Case. Upheld the power of state governments to regulate private industries that affect the common good. Set max rates charged to farmers storing grain.

Question 80

Austin v. Older

Answer 80

1938 - Allows limitations on expanding nonconforming uses in Michigan.

Question 81

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Plannign Council

Answer 81

1997 - Tahoe Planning Council determined Suitum's land was undevelopable and gave her TDR. She did not want TDR and did not try to sell them. Supreme Court ruled she did not have to attempt to sell to claim a taking.

Question 82

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictus

Answer 82

1982 - Court upheld the state's right to limit coal mining damage to buildings.

Question 83

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd

Answer 83

The court repeatedly denied a large multi-family apartment on beachfront property, even though it aligned with Comp Plan. The court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.

Question 84

Brandt Trust v. US

Answer 84

2013 - In 1875 the Railroad Right of Way Act granted an easement for Railroad Land. When the Railroad abandons the land, the easement disappears.

Question 85

Massachusetts v. EPA

Answer 85

2006 - The EPA must provide reasonable justification for why it didn't regulate greenhouse gases.

Question 86

Rapanos v. US

Answer 86

2006 - Army Corps of Engineers must determine if there is a "significant nexus" between wetlands and navigable waterways.

Question 87

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection

Answer 87

2006 - Hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Question 88

Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project

Answer 88

2015 - Asked if disparate impact was the appropriate means to evaluate the FHA. ICP alleged that tax credits were only going to minority neighborhoods. The Court ruled that disparate impact is appropriate.

Question 89

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams

Answer 89

2005 - Private citizen put radio up, City made him get conditional use permit because he was doing commercial radio. He got the permit but was still denied. The Court he could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Question 90

Mugler v. Kansas

Answer 90

1887 - 14th Amendment. Mugler was a brewer in the temperance era. Tried to claim preventing sale of alcohol was a taking and against due process, was rebuked.

Question 91

Eubank v. City of Richmond

Answer 91

1912 - 14th Amendment. Richmond established building lines upon request as long as someone owned 2/3 of the property. Considered a taking for the other 1/3.

Question 92

Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission

Answer 92

1980 - 1st Amendment. Overruled a ban on ads from the local electric utility.

Question 93

Hills v. Dorothy Guatreaux

Answer 93

1976 - Section 8 Family moved to suburbs. Was allowed to do so. Concentrated poverty can be fought by deconcentration.

Question 94

Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. Petaluma

Answer 94

1975 - Petaluma was allowed to curb population growth by limiting the number of building permits granted

Question 95

Nectow v. City of Cambridge

Answer 95

1928 - SCOTUS found the locus of the zoning ordinance intruded on Nectow's property and did not promote health, safety, or convenience for the City.

Question 96

City of Ladue v. Gilleo

Answer 96

1994 - 1st Amendment. A municipal ordinance aiming to reduce visual clutter through the regulation of signs in the yards of private homes that prohibits protected speech may violate the First Amendment if the ordinance cannot pass strict scrutiny.

Question 97

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes

Answer 97

1999 - Multiple denials of a 190-unit property even though it was consistent with Comprehensive Plan. SCOTUS called this a taking.