AICP Law Questions
Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in
each of the black spaces below before clicking
on it to display the answer.
Help!
|
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The USSC established the right of municipalities to regulate building height. What case is this/year? | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Eubank v. City of Richmond 1912
🗑
|
||||
show | Hadacheck v. Sebastain 1915
🗑
|
||||
The USSC found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nusiance, 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 w/the court | show 🗑
|
||||
The USSC 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, & welfare of the public). | show 🗑
|
||||
The court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited MF, mobile home, or low-to-moderate income housing. The court req'd the Town to open its doors to those of all income levels. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Rampo, NY; NY State Ct of Appeals 1972
🗑
|
||||
The court upheld quotas on the annual # of bldg permits issued. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Associated Homebuilders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore, CA; Calif. SC 1976
🗑
|
||||
show | Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc. 1976
🗑
|
||||
The USSC found that commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differentely. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned non-commercial signs. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent 1984
🗑
|
||||
show | City of Renton, WA. v. Playtime Theaters, Inc. 1986
🗑
|
||||
show | City of Renton, WA v. Playtime Theaters, Inc. 1986
🗑
|
||||
Congress passed RLUIPA that declares that no gov't may implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution. This is a ? amendment case. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Munn v. Illinois 1876, 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
show | US v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co. 1896; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
The USSC 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 what amendment? | show 🗑
|
||||
The USSC held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The court found that urban renewal was a valid public purpose and is part of what amendment? | show 🗑
|
||||
This court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment backed expectations & the character of gov't action. Court weighed economic impact of the regulation on investment backed expectations. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp, 1982; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
show | First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale, CA v. Co of LA, 1987; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
USSC found that the enactment of regulations didn't constitute a taking. Court found that the enactment of the Act was justified by the public interests protected by the Act. | show 🗑
|
||||
This court found that a taking had not occurred. The public utilities challenged a federal statute that auhorized the Federal Communications Commission to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles. | show 🗑
|
||||
USSC found that regulations must serve a substantial public purpose & that exactions are valid as long as the exaction & the project are reasonably related. Also found that the CCC's req't to dedicate an easment for public beach access was not reasonable | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Lucas v. So Carolina Coastal Council 1992; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
This court found there must be a rational nexus between the exaction requirement & the development. The rough proportionality test was created from this case. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Dolan v. Tigard; USSC 1994
🗑
|
||||
This taking claim was not ripe for adjudication because the owners did not attempt to sell all TDR's. Petitioner owned undeveloped land near Lake Tahoe. Land could not be developed under agency regulations. | show 🗑
|
||||
Court upheld a jury award of $1.45m in favor of the development based on the city's repeaded denials of a development permit for a 190 unit res. complex on the beach. Develp. was in conformance with zoning ord. and compreh. plan. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Palazzolo v. RI, USSC 2001 -- 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
The TRPA found that the lot couldn't be developed under agencies reg's., but that the owners could sell the rights under the TDR program. Owner sued, claiming a taking requiring compensation. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, USSC 2002 -- 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
show | Lingle v. Cheveron USA, USSC 2005 -- 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
What court/case ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied a CUP for an antenna can't seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996? | show 🗑
|
||||
This court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle & values. Court upheld reg. that prohibited more than 2 unrelated individuals from living together as a single family. Extended the concept of zoning under police pwr. | show 🗑
|
||||
City of Boerne prohibited a church in a historic dist. from expanding. Case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Court ruled the act as unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers per what amendment? | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, (1922)
🗑
|
||||
Established zoning as a valid exercise of police power by local government. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Berman v. Parker,1954
🗑
|
||||
show | Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc.,1968
🗑
|
||||
show | Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 1971
🗑
|
||||
ade National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements judicially enforceable. | show 🗑
|
||||
Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo, 1972
🗑
|
||||
Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme. Shoreland zoning ord. providing for the creation of conservancy, recreational, & general purpose districts along navigable streams & other bodies of water upheld as constituti | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, 1973
🗑
|
||||
show | Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., 1976
🗑
|
||||
Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 1978
🗑
|
||||
Introduced a means-end balancing test for regulatory takings and validated historic preservation controls. | show 🗑
|
||||
Used an alternative takings test to the Penn Central test. Open space zoning ordinance of the city of Tiburon, Ca. doesn't result in a taking of property without payment of just compensation. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 1978
🗑
|
||||
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 1st Amendment. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 1982
🗑
|
||||
Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning. Municipalities must provide their fair share of low- and moderate-income housing in their regions and established remedies to accomplish this objective. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 1985
🗑
|
||||
Allowed damages (as opposed to invalidation) as a remedy for regulatory takings. Just compensation clause of 5th Amendment requires compensation for temporary takings which occur as a result of regulations ultimately invalidated in court. | show 🗑
|
||||
Created the "essential nexus" takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications & exactions. Requiring the conveyance to the public of an easement for lateral beach access as a condition for a permit, is a taking w/out just compensation. | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992
🗑
|
||||
show | Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994
🗑
|
||||
Applied the ESA to land development. Scty of Interior's definition of "harm" to endangered species (prohibited by ESA of 1973) is valid when defined as "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife" | show 🗑
|
||||
show | Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2002
🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
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
Created by:
Firecracker
Popular Geography sets