Court Cases - Fifth Amendment

Question 1

• Court ruled that the acquisition of a national battlefield served a valid public purpose.
• First case dealing with historic preservation.

Answer 1

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company

Question 2

• Court found if a regulation goes too far it will recognized as a taking.
• Considered the first takings ruling under the 5th Amendment.

Answer 2

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon

Question 3

• Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose.
• Court held that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.

Answer 3

Berman v. Parker

Question 4

• Court invalidated a city regulation that required the placement of a public park on private property (leaving no income-producing use), but didn’t rule it as a taking that should receive compensation.

Answer 4

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York Court of Appeals

Question 5

• Court found that the NYC Landmark Preservation Law did not constitute a taking for the Grand Central Terminal.
• Court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment-backed expectations, and character of government action.

Answer 5

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York

Question 6

• Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking.
• Appellant sued the city since they felt their property’s zoning was a taking without compensation.

Answer 6

Agins v. City of Tiburon

Question 7

• Court found that the government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property that therefore constituted a taking requiring just compensation.
• Cable television company installed cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building and to serve other buildings, but property owner sued claiming the permit to occupy the building was a taking.

Answer 7

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation

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 subject the government to pay for damages.
• Court found that the County could either buy-out the property or revoke the ordinance and pay the church for its losses.

Answer 8

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles

Question 9

• Court found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act.
• Coal Association alleged that the Act requiring 50 percent of the coal beneath four protected structures be kept in place constituted a taking.

Answer 9

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictus

Question 10

• Court found that a taking had not occurred.
• Public utilities challenged a federal statute that authorized the Federal Communications Commission to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for utility poles.

Answer 10

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation

Question 11

• Court agreed that a legitimate interest is served by maintaining a “continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast,” but that California must provide just compensation to beachfront property owners for the public use of their land
• Beachfront property owners were told by CCC that they need to maintain beachfront access when seeking a building permit.

Answer 11

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Question 12

• Court found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left) after the regulation is in place.
• Court found that Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place, and so the regulation constituted a taking.

Answer 12

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Question 13

• Court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain (to create a greenway and bicycle path) by a commercial business that wanted to expand.
• Court found that there was not enough of a connection between the exaction requirement and the development.
  -“Rough proportionality” test was created from this case: “an exaction is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use.”

Answer 13

Dolan v. Tigard

Question 14

• Court ruled that Suitum did not have to attempt to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking suit.
• Court, was answering the question of whether an owner must attempt to sell their development rights before claiming a regulatory taking of property without just compensation.

Answer 14

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Question 15

• Court upheld a jury award of $1.45 million in favor of the development based on the city’s repeated denials of a development permit for a 190-unit residential complex on oceanfront property (in compliance with codes).
• Court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.

Answer 15

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey