Legal Cases

Question 1

Welch v. Swasey (1909)

Answer 1

court established the right of cities to regulate building height. height regulations are based on reasonable grounds, and doesnt violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment

Question 2

Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912)

Answer 2

court struck down an ordinance that allowed the owners of two-thirds of the land abutting any street to request a building line, as the court was against the delegation of this authority to private citizens

Question 3

Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)

Answer 3

court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses

Question 4

Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (1926)

Answer 4

court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. court upheld that modern zoning is a proper use of police power

Question 5

Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)

Answer 5

court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose (to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public). court ruled it was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment

Question 6

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo (1972)

Answer 6

court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, road access, and firehouses. developers could increase their point total by providing the facilities themselves

Question 7

Construction Industry of Sonoma v. City of Petaluma (1975)

Answer 7

court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued

Question 8

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore (1976)

Answer 8

court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits

Question 9

Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States (2013)

Answer 9

court found that the 1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement for the railroad’s land. When the railroad company abandons the land, it should be settled as an easement and if the easement is abandoned, the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner

Question 10

Massachusetts v. EPA Inc. (2006)

Answer 10

court upheld that the EPA must provide reasonable justification for why it wouldnt regulate greenhouse gases

Question 11

Rapanos v. United States (2006)

Answer 11

court found that the Army Corps of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway

Question 12

SD Warren v. Maine Borard of Environmental Protection (2006)

Answer 12

court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act

Question 13

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities (2015)

Answer 13

court upheld that disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act. result is that policies that even inadvertently regulate miniorities to poor areas violate the Fair Housing Act

Question 14

Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc. (1976)

Answer 14

court upheld zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit

Question 15

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981)

Answer 15

court found that commercial and noncommercial speech cant be treated differently. court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs

Question 16

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)

Answer 16

court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles. found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance didnt regulate the content of signs. if it didnt regulate content, ordinance must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. court found that aesthetics does advance a legitimate state interest

Question 17

City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc. (1986)

Answer 17

court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. city cannot entirely ban adult entertainment

Question 18

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

Answer 18

act which declares that no government may implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution unless the government demonstrates that imposition of burden is in furtherance of compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. came after City of Boerne v. Flores

Question 19

Reed et al. v. Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014)

Answer 19

found that the city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages. court found the sign ordinance was not content neutral

Question 20

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)

Answer 20

court ruled that the acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose. first significant legal case in historic preservation

Question 21

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)

Answer 21

court found that if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. this was the first takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th amendment

Question 22

Berman v. Parker (1954)

Answer 22

court upheld that aesthetics is a valid public purpose, and found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose

Question 23

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

Answer 23

court invalidated a regulation that required the placement of a public park on private property that left no income producing use on the property. court invalidated the rule but it didnt rule that it was a taking worthy of compensation

Question 24

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York (1978)

Answer 24

court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. in this case, court found that the new york city landmark preservation law as applied to grand central terminal didnt constitute a taking

Question 25

Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980)

Answer 25

court upheld a city’s right to zone property at a low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking

Question 26

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation (1982)

Answer 26

court found that the government authorized a permanent physical occupation of property that therefore constituted a taking requiring just compensation from a cable TV company who put cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building and others

Question 27

First Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles (1987)

Answer 27

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 owners can subjet the government to pay for damages

Question 28

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis (1987)

Answer 28

court found that enactments of PA’s Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act regulations didnt constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the act

Question 29

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation (1987)

Answer 29

court found that a taking didnt occur when the FCC was able to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles

Question 30

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

Answer 30

court agreed that a legitimate intersts is served by maintaining a “continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast” but that CA must provide just compensation to the beachfront property owners for the public use of their land

Question 31

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

Answer 31

court found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value after the regulation is in place

Question 32

Dolan v. Tigard (1994)

Answer 32

court overturned an exaction that required a portion of a floodplain by a commercial business that wanted to expand. found that there wasnt enough of a connection between the exaction requirement and the development. the rough proportionality test was created from this case, which states that 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

Question 33

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997)

Answer 33

court rules that the property owner didnt have to attempt to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking suit

Question 34

City of Moneterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd. (1999)

Answer 34

upheld a jury award in favor of the development based on the city’s repeated denials of a development permit for a residential complex on a beachfront property, despite the development’s conformance to the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable uses of land

Question 35

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

Answer 35

court found that acquisition of title after effective dates of regulations doesnt bar regulatory taking claims

Question 36

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al. (2002)

Answer 36

court found that the moratoria on development in the lake tahoe basin while the agency created the area’s comprehensive plan didnt constitute a taking requiring compensation

Question 37

Lingle v. Cheveron USC, Inc. (2005)

Answer 37

court overturned a portion fo Agins v. City of Tiburon declaring that regulation of property does effect a taking if it doesnt substantially advance legitimate state interests. court found that the takings clause challeneges had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furthering the government interests

Question 38

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005)

Answer 38

ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna couldnt seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

Question 39

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Answer 39

ruled that economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain

Question 40

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)

Answer 40

ruled that submerged lands that would bt filled by the state for beach reclamation didnt constitute a taking of property without just compensation

Question 41

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

Answer 41

upheld that a government is liable for taking when it denies a permit until a landowner agrees to dedicate land for public use

Question 42

Munn v. Illinois (1876)

Answer 42

court found that a state law regulating pricing didnt constitute a violation of due process. court established the principle of public regulation or private business in the public interest. found that regulation of private property doesnt violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good

Question 43

Mugler v. Kansas (1887)

Answer 43

court found that state law prohibiting liquor sales didnt constitute a taking and violation of due process. “a prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking”

Question 44

Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas (1974)

Answer 44

court upheld a regulation that prohibited 2 or more unrelated individuals from living together as a single family. court found that community has the power to control lifestyle and values. court extended the concept of zoning under police power to include a community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles

Question 45

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977)

Answer 45

found that the “ultimate effect” of rezoning denial in this instance was racially discriminatory and observing that the denial would disproportionately affect blacks, particularly in view of the fact that the general suburban area, though economically expanding, continued to be marked by residential segregation

Question 46

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (1975)

Answer 46

court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile homes, or low to moderate income housing. court required the town to open its doors to those of all income levels

Question 47

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Answer 47

case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. court ruled that the city prohibiting a church in a historic district from enlarging was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforecement powers of the 14th amendment