Supreme Court Flashcards
(141 cards)
1
Q
Created modern Endangered Species Act law
A
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978)
2
Q
Young v. American Mini Theaters Inc (1976)
A
Upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit
3
Q
The Secretary of Transportation can only approve use of federal funds for construction of a highway in a public park if no (a) feasible and prudent alternative exists, and (b) after undertaking all possible planning to minimize harm.
Established the “hard look” doctrine for environmental impact review
A
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)
4
Q
Acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory takings claim
A
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2000)
5
Q
Court allowed time phasing of future residential growth until performance conditions were met
A
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore (1976)
6
Q
Commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently
Extended commercial speech to aesthetic regulation.
A
Metromedia v. City of San Diego (1981)
7
Q
- Young v American Mini Theaters (1976)
- City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986)
A
What are the two main cases regarding “Freedom of Expression”?
8
Q
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)
A
Regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign
9
Q
If a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking;
The U.S. Supreme Court indicated, for the first time, that regulation of land use might be a taking
A
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)
10
Q
upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits
A
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore (1976)
11
Q
Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)
A
the invasion of the plaintiff’s property was “serious and highly injurous” - rezoning that rendered the tract worthless
Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose
12
Q
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was not facially unconstitutional but was instead a permissible accommodation of religion under the First Amendment.
A
Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)
13
Q
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore (1976)
A
Court allowed time phasing of future residential growth until performance conditions were met
14
Q
Moratoria on development do not constitute a taking requiring compensation
A
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council et al v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al (2002)
15
Q
Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)
A
prohibition of production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th amendment; approved the regulation of the location of land uses
16
Q
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York (1978)
A
NYC Landmark Preservation Law did not constitute a taking
Historic preservation ordinances were constitutional because they fulfilled a valid public purpose
17
Q
The Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent the State of Illinois from regulating charges for use of a business’s grain elevators.
A
Munn v. Illinois (1876)
18
Q
the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases
A
Massachusetts v. EPA (2006)
19
Q
submerged lands that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation
A
Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)
20
Q
ordinance giving one set of property owners ability to impose setbacks through petition deprives other owners of due process
A
Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912)
21
Q
Upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking
A
Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980)
22
Q
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (1975)
A
Towns must accept fair share of affordable housing, equal protection clause
Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning.
Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of the region’s growth
23
Q
Made NEPA requirements judicially enforceable
A
Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (1971)
24
Q
Suitman v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997)
A
By determining that Suitum’s property was ineligible for development, the agency had had made final determination, even though she had not attempted to sell the TDRs which she had received, or was eligible to receive, under the agency plan
25
Texas Dept of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc (2015)
Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act; policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violate the Fair Housing Act
26
Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies
Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)
27
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council et al v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al (2002)
Moratoria on development do not constitute a taking requiring compensation
28
Welch v Swasey (1909)
established the right of municipalities to regulate building height
29
State law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process
Mugler v. Kansas (1887)
30
City of Boerne v. FLores (1997)
Enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
31
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985)
Defined the ripeness doctrine for judicial review of takings claims
Ripeness doctrine: prohibiting federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over a case until an actual controversy is presented involving a threat of injury that is real and immediate
32
Upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit
Young v. American Mini Theaters Inc (1976)
33
City of Boernes v. Flores (1997)
enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional powder under the 14th amendment
34
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2000)
Acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory takings claim
35
Spur Industries v. Webb Development (1972)
"coming to a nuisance" doctrine
Webb's choice to come to the nuisance could not preclude the public from being protected from the nuisance
36
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. CIty of Petaluma (1971)
upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued
37
Army Corps of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway; wetlands without a connection to other navigable waters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act
Rapanos v. United States (2006)
38
Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act; policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violate the Fair Housing Act
Texas Dept of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc (2015)
39
What were the two main cases regarding signage?
1. Metromedia v. City of San Diego (1981)
2. Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)
40
Rapanos v. United States (2006)
Army Corps of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway; wetlands without a connection to other navigable waters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act
41
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation (1987)
Federal statute that authorized the FCC to regulate rents for the use of utility poles were not a taking
42
Massachusetts v. EPA (2006)
the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases
43
as long as the community believed there was a threat of nuisance, the zoning ordinance could be upheld
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co (1926)
44
prohibition of production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th amendment; approved the regulation of the location of land uses
Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)
45
upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on public utilities and services
Recognized growth phasing programs.
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo (1972)
46
The taking of a private property for a public purpose, provided that just compensation is paid, does not violate the 5th Amendment;
Urban renewal is a valid public purpose
Berman v. Parker (1954)
47
Metromedia v. City of San Diego (1981)
Commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently
Extended commercial speech to aesthetic regulation.
48
Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980)
Upheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking
49
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles (1987)
```
The complete destruction of the value of property constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.
Allowed damages (as opposed to invalidation) as a remedy for regulatory takings.
```
50
Regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)
51
When a discretionary land-use permit is denied because the applicant declines to pay for improvements to other, unrelated property, a challenge to the constitutionality of the denial must be evaluated under the "essential nexus" standard of *[Nollan v. California Coastal Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nollan_v._California_Coastal_Commission)* and the "rough proportionality" requirement of *[Dolan v. City of Tigard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolan_v._City_of_Tigard)*.
Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management (2012)
52
Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)
submerged lands that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation
53
Regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good
Munn v. Illinois (1876)
54
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
Extended Nollan’s “essential nexus” test to require “rough proportionality” between development impact and conditions
Dolan v. Tigard (1994)
55
Required zoning be consistent with comprehensive plans and recognized that rezonings may be quasi-judicisal as well as legislative
Fasano v. Board of County Commissionsers of Washington County (1973)
56
legitimized the planned unit development process
Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope (1968)
57
The government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property (installing cables) and was therefore a taking
Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimis.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp (1982)
58
"coming to a nuisance" doctrine
Webb's choice to come to the nuisance could not preclude the public from being protected from the nuisance
Spur Industries v. Webb Development (1972)
59
Economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
60
upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. CIty of Petaluma (1971)
61
By determining that Suitum's property was ineligible for development, the agency had had made final determination, even though she had not attempted to sell the TDRs which she had received, or was eligible to receive, under the agency plan
Suitman v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997)
62
The acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose; first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)
63
Placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable
City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986)
64
Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management (2012)
When a discretionary land-use permit is denied because the applicant declines to pay for improvements to other, unrelated property, a challenge to the constitutionality of the denial must be evaluated under the "essential nexus" standard of *[Nollan v. California Coastal Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nollan_v._California_Coastal_Commission)* and the "rough proportionality" requirement of *[Dolan v. City of Tigard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolan_v._City_of_Tigard)*.
65
Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was not facially unconstitutional but was instead a permissible accommodation of religion under the First Amendment.
66
Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (1971)
Made NEPA requirements judicially enforceable
67
City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986)
Placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable
68
Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope (1968)
legitimized the planned unit development process
69
Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)
Cities cannot define "family" so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other
70
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)
The Secretary of Transportation can only approve use of federal funds for construction of a highway in a public park if no (a) feasible and prudent alternative exists, and (b) after undertaking all possible planning to minimize harm.
Established the "hard look" doctrine for environmental impact review
71
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)
A governmental exaction has to be substantially related to a legitimate government interest and there must be a nexus between the exaction and that interest. California Coastal Commission's requirement to dedicate an easement for public beach access was not reasonable.
Created the “essential nexus” takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications a nd exactions.
72
NYC Landmark Preservation Law did not constitute a taking
Historic preservation ordinances were constitutional because they fulfilled a valid public purpose
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York (1978)
73
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)
The acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose; first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation
74
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978)
Created modern Endangered Species Act law
75
The city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages
Reed et al. v. Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014)
76
Federal statute that authorized the FCC to regulate rents for the use of utility poles were not a taking
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation (1987)
77
Cities cannot define "family" so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other
Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)
78
Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)
Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies
79
The enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act (Pennsylvania's Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act)
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis (1987)
80
Repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land (development was in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordiance)
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd (1999)
81
Cohen v. Des Plains (1990)
Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments; Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn't
82
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005)
a licensed radio operator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
83
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp (1982)
The government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property (installing cables) and was therefore a taking
Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimis.
84
What case was a main challenge against the clean air act?
Massachusetts v. EPA (2006)
85
the invasion of the plaintiff's property was "serious and highly injurous" - rezoning that rendered the tract worthless
Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose
Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)
86
A governmental exaction has to be substantially related to a legitimate government interest and there must be a nexus between the exaction and that interest. California Coastal Commission's requirement to dedicate an easement for public beach access was not reasonable.
Created the “essential nexus” takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications a nd exactions.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)
87
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo (1972)
upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on public utilities and services
Recognized growth phasing programs.
88
a railroad right of way is an easement so when a railroad abandons it, the easement disappears
Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States (2013)
89
What were the factors the US Supreme Court used to determine the Penn Central Transportation Company vs. The City of New York Case?
The court found that a taking is based on:
1. The extent of the dimuntion of value
2. Interference with investment backed expectations
3. The character of the regulation to determine whether a regulation deprives one of property rights
90
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co (1926)
as long as the community believed there was a threat of nuisance, the zoning ordinance could be upheld
91
Lingle v. Chevron (2005)
Contrary to the holding of Agins v. City of Tiburon,[1] the test of whether a governmental regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to determining whether the regulation effects an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
92
93
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977)
Zoning ordinance did not violate 14th amendment based on application of Disparate Impact/Purposeful Discrimination test.
Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts.
94
Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme
Just v. Marinette County (1972)
95
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd (1999)
Repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land (development was in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordiance)
96
Applied the Endangered Species Act to land development
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995)
97
What Supreme Court case preceded the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000?
Following the Supreme Court's ruling in City of Boerne v Flores, Congress passed the Religious and Institutionalized Persons Act
98
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)
If a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking;
The U.S. Supreme Court indicated, for the first time, that regulation of land use might be a taking
99
Found that changes that the city made to their zoning ordinance brought the ordinance into compliance with RLUIPA
Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. The City of Chicago
100
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995)
Applied the Endangered Species Act to land development
101
What 2 cases have the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 been challenged in?
1. Civil Liberties for Urban Believers vs. the City of Chicago (2003)
2. Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)
102
Defined the ripeness doctrine for judicial review of takings claims
Ripeness doctrine: prohibiting federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over a case until an actual controversy is presented involving a threat of injury that is real and immediate
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985)
103
Reed et al. v. Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014)
The city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages
104
Fasano v. Board of County Commissionsers of Washington County (1973)
Required zoning be consistent with comprehensive plans and recognized that rezonings may be quasi-judicisal as well as legislative
105
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York (1976)
The city placed a regulation that required the placement of a public park on aprivate property leaving no income producing use of the property;
Invalidated the regulation, not ruled as a taking
106
a licensed radio operator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005)
107
Just v. Marinette County (1972)
Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme
108
Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas (1974)
The police power is a valid basis for establishing residential zones that limit the number of unrelated individuals who may inhabit a dwelling
109
Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912)
ordinance giving one set of property owners ability to impose setbacks through petition deprives other owners of due process
110
111
Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments; Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn't
Cohen v. Des Plains (1990)
112
The city placed a regulation that required the placement of a public park on aprivate property leaving no income producing use of the property;
Invalidated the regulation, not ruled as a taking
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York (1976)
113
Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. The City of Chicago
Found that changes that the city made to their zoning ordinance brought the ordinance into compliance with RLUIPA
114
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis (1987)
The enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act (Pennsylvania's Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act)
115
Dolan v. Tigard (1994)
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
Extended Nollan’s “essential nexus” test to require “rough proportionality” between development impact and conditions
116
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
Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp (1932)
117
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
Economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain
118
Hydroelectric dams are subject to the Clean Water Act
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (2006)
119
Munn v. Illinois (1876)
Regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good
120
established the right of municipalities to regulate building height
Welch v Swasey (1909)
121
Following the Supreme Court's ruling in City of Boerne v Flores, Congress passed the Religious and Institutionalized Persons Act
What Supreme Court case preceded the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000?
122
Enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
City of Boerne v. FLores (1997)
123
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore (1976)
upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits
124
Sign ordinance that bans some signs based on content is unconstitutional
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)
125
Contrary to the holding of Agins v. City of Tiburon,[1] the test of whether a governmental regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to determining whether the regulation effects an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Lingle v. Chevron (2005)
126
The police power is a valid basis for establishing residential zones that limit the number of unrelated individuals who may inhabit a dwelling
Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas (1974)
127
```
The complete destruction of the value of property constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.
Allowed damages (as opposed to invalidation) as a remedy for regulatory takings.
```
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles (1987)
128
Berman v. Parker (1954)
The taking of a private property for a public purpose, provided that just compensation is paid, does not violate the 5th Amendment;
Urban renewal is a valid public purpose
129
enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional powder under the 14th amendment
City of Boernes v. Flores (1997)
130
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (2006)
Hydroelectric dams are subject to the Clean Water Act
131
Towns must accept fair share of affordable housing, equal protection clause
Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning.
Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of the region's growth
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (1975)
132
Mugler v. Kansas (1887)
State law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process
133
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)
Sign ordinance that bans some signs based on content is unconstitutional
134
Munn v. Illinois (1876)
The Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent the State of Illinois from regulating charges for use of a business's grain elevators.
135
Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp (1932)
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
136
What two main cases challenges the clean water act?
1. Rapanos v. United States (2006)
2. SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (2006)
137
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
There is a taking if there is a total reduction in value after the regulation is in place
Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place
Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principles of law
138
Zoning ordinance did not violate 14th amendment based on application of Disparate Impact/Purposeful Discrimination test.
Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977)
139
Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States (2013)
a railroad right of way is an easement so when a railroad abandons it, the easement disappears
140
There is a taking if there is a total reduction in value after the regulation is in place
Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place
Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principles of law
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
141
What are the two main cases regarding "Freedom of Expression"?
1. Young v American Mini Theaters (1976)
2. City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986)
