or...
Reset Password Free Sign Up


incorrect cards (0)
correct cards (0)
remaining cards (0)
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the Correct box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the Incorrect box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

Correct box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards



Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

AICP Case Law

AICP Certification Case Law and Legal Basis for Planning

QuestionAnswer
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon 1922 - Takings Case - Restrictions on Use - Justice Holmes wrote in opinion "The general rule...is, that while property maybe regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking"
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. 1926 - Takings - Restrictions on Use -This case upheld zoning as constitutional under the United States Constitution, as being within the police power of the state. If zoning classifications were reasonable, then they would be upheld
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City 1978 - Takings - Restriction on Use - Upheld that the restrictions imposed (by the Landmarks Law) are substantially related to the general welfare and not only permit reasonable use but also afford appellants opportunities to further enhance the property.
Agins v. City of Tiburon 1979 - Takings - Restriction on Use - Two prong test - 1 "does not substantially advance legitimate state interests" or 2 "denies an owner economically viable use of his land"
Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis 1987 - Takings - Affirmed Agins Test #1 - Stated that some states interest are more "legitimate than others" The more defensible the states interest the more likely it will be upheld.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 1987 - Takings - Expanded Agins Test #1 required a Nexus between the taking and the state's interest.-
Dolan v. City of Tigard 1994 - Takings - Expanded Agins Test #1 - "required a reasonable relationship" between the conditions to be imposed on a permit and the development's impact. "rough proportionality"
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 1992 - Takings - Expanded Agins test #2 - found a takings when the owner was called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good.
Munn v. Illinois 1877 - A landmark decision that paved the way for future governmental intervention in private development.
Welch v. Swasey 1909 - The first clear-cut nationwide authority for communities to regulate development of private property through limitation of building heights, and to vary these heights by zone.
Eubank v. City of Richmond 1912 - Setback legislation declared constitutional.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian 1915 - Provided that the restriction of future profitable uses was not a taking of property without just compensation.
Town of Windsor v. Whitney 1920 - Made land subdivision regulations possible by holding that dedication of streets as a prerequisite to platting was possible.
Second Prong of the Agins Test An owner may not be denied economically valuable use of his or her land.
First Prong of the Agins Test Regulations must substantially advance a legitimate state (governmental) interest.
Nexus The condition has a required degree of connection.
Metromedia v. City of San Diego 1981 - Ordinances that placed tighter restrictions on non-commercial signs than commercial signs violate the 1st Amendment.
Young. v. American Mini Theaters 1976 - Communities can zone locations of adult entertainment establishments without violating the 1st Amendment.
Renton v. Playtime Theaters 1986 - Upheld separation or concentration requirements for adult uses where a substantial government interest exists.
Procedural Due Process An assurance that all parties to the proceeding are treated fairly and equally.
Substantive Due Process Payment by government of just compensation to property owners when property is condemned or dimished by government action.
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas 1974 - Upheld power to prohibit more than two unrelated individuals from residing together as a family.
S. Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel 1972 - Held that communties in growing areas in the way of urban expansion must take their fair share of the region's growth.
Construction Industry Assoc. or Sonoma County v. Petaluma Communities can restrict the number of building permits granted each year if reasonable.
Golden v. Ramapo Upheld conditional development on the provision of services.
Berman v. Parker Upheld redevelopment programs that took property in eminent domian and resold the property to private developers for redevelopment.
Moore v. East Cleveland Cities cannot define family so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other.
Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore 1976 - Allowed for time phasing in future residential growth until performance conditions were met, including schools, sewers, water, and fire protection.
1st English Evangical Luthern Church v. County of Los Angeles Court rejected concept that sole remedy for taking is payment of full value of property. City could either buy property outright or revoke ordinance and pay church for losses at time of trial.
Created by: Joseph.w.baker on 2005-01-28



Copyright ©2001-2014  StudyStack LLC   All rights reserved.