Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
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
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Law
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| 1st Amendment | Freedom of speech, religion and association |
| 5th Amendment | Just compensation when a taking occurs (eminent domain) |
| 14th Amendment | Due process, equal protection (takings, exactions, ordinances, exclusionary zoning, aesthetics) |
| Young v. American Mini Theaters | 1st Amendment. 1976 US Supreme Court 5-4 determined that Detroit's ordinances for SOBs did not violate 1st or 14th Amendments. Distance requirements. |
| City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc | 1986 The Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic and crime), not the content. The Court found that the city does not have to guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. However, the city cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment. The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. |
| United States v Gettysburg Electric Railway Company | 1896 The Court ruled that the acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose. This was the first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation. |
| Metromedia, Inc v. City of San Diego | 1981 The Court found that commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned non-commercial signs. |
| City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent | 1984 The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance does not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The Court found that aesthetics advance a legitimate state interest. The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles. |
| Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon | 1922 The 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. |
| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp | 1982 The court found that where there is a physical occupation, there is a taking. The cable television company installed cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building and to serve other buildings. The property owner brought a class action suit claiming that allowing the cable company to occupy the land was a taking. |
| First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County | 1987 The 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. The court found that the County could either purchase the property out-right or revoke the ordinance and pay the church for its losses during the time of the trial. |
| Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency | 2002 The Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed two moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comprehensive plan for the area. A group of property owners sued, claiming a taking. |
| SUITUM v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY | 1997 The 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. The petitioner owned an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency found that the lot could not be developed under the agencies' regulations, but that Suitum could sell the development rights under the Transfer of Development Rights program. Suitum sued claiming a taking requiring compensation. |
| Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas | 1974 The court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values. The court extended the concept of zoning under police power to include a community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles. The court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single family. |
| Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis | 1987 found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking. Found that the enactment of the Act was justified by the public interests protected by the Act. Pennsylvania's Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act prohibits coal mining that causes subsidence damage to pre-existing public buildings. The Act requires that 50 percent of the coal beneath four protected structures be kept in place to provide surface support. The Coal Association alleged that this constituted a taking. |
| Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection | 2009 Littoral rights. The Supreme Court ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state did not represent a taking to the waterfront property owners. |
| RTM Media v. City of Houston | 2009 US Court of Appeals. Houston banned billboards. Court found that it could treat commercial vs noncommercial speech differently. The City's goal to eliminate signs was substatiated as an advancement of government. |
| Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909) | The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height. |
| Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912) | The Court first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case. |
| Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915) | The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses. |
| Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926) | The Court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. The court first upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court. |
| Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928) | The Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public). 14th Amendment |
| Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972) | The court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. A proposal would only be approved upon reaching a certain point level. Developers could increase their point total by providing the involved facilities themselves. |
| Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975) | The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued. |
| Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976) | The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits. |
| Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954) | The court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The court found that urban renewal was a valid public purpose. |
| Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978) | The 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. The court weighed the economic impact of the regulation on investment backed expectations and the character of the regulation to determine whether the regulation deprives one of property rights. The court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking. |
| Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980) | The Court upheld a city's right to zone property low-density and determined this zoning was not a taking. The appellants acquired five acres of unimproved land for residential development. The City adopted zoning ordinances that placed the property in a zone where property may be devoted to one-family dwellings, with density restrictions permitting between one and five single-family residences on their tract. 1-substantially advance legitimate state business, denies owner economically viable use of land |
| Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987) | The Court found that regulations must serve a substantial public purpose and that exactions are valid as long as the exaction and the project are reasonably related. The court also found that the California Coastal Commission’s requirement to dedicate an easement for public beach access was not reasonable. |
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992) | The 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, except where derived from the state’s law of property and nuisance. The court found that Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place and so constituted a taking. |
| Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994) | The Court found there must be a rational nexus between the exaction requirement and the development. The rough proportionality test was created from this case. The court found that conditions that require the deeding of portions of a property to the government can be justified where there is a relationship between the nature and extent of the proposed development. The court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of the floodplain by a commercial business that wanted to expand. |
| Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005) | The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent, declaring that regulation of property effects a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. The court found this prong of the formula imprecise and not appropriate for determining if a taking has occurred. |
| Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court (2005) | The Supreme Court ruled that a economic development is a valid use of eminent domain. The court found that it is not in a position to determine the amount or character of land needed for a particular public project. |
| Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975) | The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing. The court required the Town to open its doors to those of all income levels. |
| City of Boerne v. Flores; U.S. Supreme Court (1997) | This case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The City of Boerne, Texas prohibited a church in a historic district from enlarging. The Supreme Court ruled that the act is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforcement powers of the fourteenth amendment. In the end, the city and church came to an agreement to leave 80 percent of the church intact and allow a new 750-seat auditorium on the rear of the auditorium. |
| Indian Reorganization Act | 1934. Organized Native Americans and adoption of constitutions. Allowed Native Americans to adopt a constitution and organize their own welfare. |
| Commonwealth of Massachussetts v. US EPA | Test of the Clean Air Act. EPA needs a reasonable explanation for why GHG would not be regulated. |
| Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope | The Court in 1968 found that planned unit developments are acceptable if the regulations focus on density requirements rather than specific rules for each lot. |
Created by:
gskbrew
Popular Standardized Tests sets