click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
AICP Prep 2013
Law
Term | Definition |
---|---|
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) | The U.S. Supreme Court indicated, for the first time, that regulation of land use might be a taking. |
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.(1926) | Established zoning as a valid exercise of police power by local government. |
Berman v. Parker (1954) | Established aesthetics and redevelopment as valid public purposes for exercising the power of eminent domain. |
Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc. (1968) | Legitimized the planned unit development (PUD) process. |
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971) | Established the “hard look” doctrine for environmental impact review. |
Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (DC 1971) | Made National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements judicially enforceable. |
Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) | Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies. |
Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo (NY 1972) | Recognized growth phasing programs. |
Just v. Marinette County (WI 1972) | Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme. |
Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County (OR 1973) | Required zoning to be consistent with comprehensive plans and recognized that rezonings may be quasi-judicial as well as legislative. |
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc (1976) | Opened up the possibility to control pornography via land use. Special requirements applicable to adult theatres and bookstores upheld. |
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977) | Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts. |
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978) | Created modern Endangered Species Act law (protecting the snail darter). U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision held that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits the completion and operation of the Tellico Dam. |
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978) | Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York |
*Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) | Used an alternative takings test to the Penn Central test. U.S. Supreme Court rules that the open space zoning ordinance of the city of Tiburon, California, does not result in a taking of property without payment of just compensation. |
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981) | Extended commercial speech to aesthetic regulation. Ordinance that substantially restricted both commercial and noncommercial off-site billboards as well as noncommercial on-site billboards held unconstitutional under the First Amendment. |
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) | Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimis. |
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel (II) (NJ 1983) | Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning. |
*Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985) | Defined the ripeness doctrine for judicial review of takings claims. |
*First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County (1987) | Allowed damages (as opposed to invalidation) as a remedy for regulatory takings. Just compensation clause of Fifth Amendment requires compensation for temporary takings which occur as a result of regulations ultimately invalidated in court. |
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) | Created the “essential nexus” takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications and exactions. |
*Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) | Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principles of law. |
*Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) | Extended Nollan’s “essential nexus” test to require “rough proportionality” between development impact and conditions. |
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) | Applied the Endangered Species Act to land development. |
*Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) | Sanctioned the use of moratoria and reaffirmed the parcel-as-a-whole rule for takings review. Moratoria on development are not per se takings under the Fifth Amendment, but should be analyzed under the multi-factor Penn Central test. |