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? | Welch v. Swasey 1909
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case. What case/year? | Eubank v. City of Richmond 1912
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC first approved the regulation of the location of land uses. | 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 | Village of Euclid, OH Ambler Realty Co., 1926
🗑
|
||||
| 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). | Nectow v. City of Cambridge 1928
🗑
|
||||
| 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. | So. Burlington Co. NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; NJ Supreme CT 1975
🗑
|
||||
| The court upheld a growth mgmt system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access & firehouses. A proposal would only be approved upon reaching a certain point level. | 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. | Construction Industry of Sonoma Co. v. City of Peteluma; US Ct of Appeals for the 4th Circuit 1975
🗑
|
||||
| The court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits. | Associated Homebuilders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore, CA; Calif. SC 1976
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit. | 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. | Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 1981
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance doesn't regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. | Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent 1984
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC found that placing restrictions on the time, place & manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic & crime) not the content. | City of Renton, WA. v. Playtime Theaters, Inc. 1986
🗑
|
||||
| The court upheld a zoning ordinance that linited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. Court found that the city doesn't have to guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. | 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. | Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 2000, 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking. Court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest. This is a ? amendment case. | Munn v. Illinois 1876, 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC 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. This is a ? amendment case. | 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? | Pennsylvania Coal Co v. Mahon, 1922; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| 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? | Berman v. Parker, 1954; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| 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. | Penn Central Transportation Co v. City of NY, USSC 1978; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| USSC found that where there is a physical occupation, there is a taking. Cable TV Co. installed cables on a bldg to serve the tenants of the bldg & to serve other bldgs. Allowing the cable co to occupy the land was considered a taking. What amendment? | Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp, 1982; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| USSC 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 gov't to pay for damages. What amendment? | 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. | Keystone Bituminous Coal Assoc. v. DeBenedictis, 1987; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| 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. | FCC v. Florida Power Corp., USSC 1987; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| 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 | Nollan v. Calif. Coastal Commission, 1987; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| USSC found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left) aafter the regulation is in place, except where derived from the state's law of property & nuisance. | 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. | Dolan v. Tigard, USSC, 1994 -- 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| This court found that conditions require the deeding of portions of a property to the gov't can be justified where there is a relationship betwen the nature & extent of the proposed developement. | 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. | Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, USSC 1997 -- 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| 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. | City of Monterey, CA. v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey -- USSC 1999 -- 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| Property owner claimed inverse condemnation. Was deinied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club. Court found that acquistion of title after the effective date of reg. doesn't bar reg. taking claim. | 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. | Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, USSC 1997 -- 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| This court found that the moratoria didn't constitute a taking req'ing compensation.The TRPA imposed 2 moratoria on develop. in the Lk Tahoe Basin while agency formulated a compreh. plan for the area. Owners sued, claiming a taking | Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, USSC 2002 -- 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| The court overturned a portion of the Agins case declaring that regul. of a property effects a taking if it doesn't substantially advance legitimate state interests. Court found the 1st prong imprecise & not appropriate for determining if taking occured. | 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? | City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA v. Abrams, USSC 2005 -- 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| 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. | Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraa, USSC 1974 -- 14th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| 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? | 14th Amendment; City of Boerne, TX v. Flores 1997
🗑
|
||||
| The U.S. Supreme Court indicated, for the first time, that regulation of land use might be | Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, (1922)
🗑
|
||||
| Established zoning as a valid exercise of police power by local government. | Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co, 1926
🗑
|
||||
| Established aesthetics and redevelopment as valid public purposes for exercising the power of eminent domain. | Berman v. Parker,1954
🗑
|
||||
| Ordinance creating a PUD Dist. & authorizing the planning commission to approve the type, size & location of buildgs & uses w/in the district wasn't in violation of the municipal comp. plan or an illegal delegation of legislative power to the commission. | Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc.,1968
🗑
|
||||
| Established the "hard look" doctrine for environmental impact review. | Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 1971
🗑
|
||||
| ade National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements judicially enforceable. | Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission, 1971
🗑
|
||||
| Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies. | Sierra Club v. Morton, 1972
🗑
|
||||
| Recognized growth phasing programs. Zoning ordinance, allowing subdivision development only by special permit upon showing that adequate municipal facilities and services were available or would be provided by the developer. | 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 | Just v. Marinette County, 1972
🗑
|
||||
| Required zoning to be consistent with comprehensive plans and recognized that rezonings may be quasi-judicial as well as legislative | Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, 1973
🗑
|
||||
| Opened up the possibility to control pornography via land use. Special requirements applicable to adult theatres & bookstores upheld. | Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., 1976
🗑
|
||||
| Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts. | Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 1977
🗑
|
||||
| Created modern ESA law (protecting the snail darter). USSC in a 6-3 decision held that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits the completion & operation of the Tellico Dam | Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 1978
🗑
|
||||
| Introduced a means-end balancing test for regulatory takings and validated historic preservation controls. | Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 1978
🗑
|
||||
| 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. | Agins v. City of Tiburon, 1980
🗑
|
||||
| Restrictions on the development of the Grand Central Terminal did not amount to a taking of property, since Penn Central could transfer the development rights to the other properties and a reasonable return on the property was allowed. | 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. | Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 1981
🗑
|
||||
| Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimis. State law that req'd landlords to permit installation of cable tv facilities on their property constituted a taking because it was a physical invasion of permanent duration. | 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. | Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel (II), 1983
🗑
|
||||
| Defined ripeness doctrine for judicial review. No final decision for judicial review has been made & a claim of a taking w/out just compensation is premature where a property owner fails to seek the possible relief of variance & condemnation procedures. | 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. | First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County, 1987
🗑
|
||||
| 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. | Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,1987
🗑
|
||||
| Compensation to be paid to landowners when regulations deprive them of all economically beneficial land use unless uses are disallowed by title or by state law background principles of private & public nuisances | Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992
🗑
|
||||
| Permit condition requiring land dedication for pedestrian/bike path is unconstitutional taking when city has not made individualized showing that dedication would "roughly proportionately" lessen traffic generated by proposed new development. | 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" | Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 1995
🗑
|
||||
| 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 5th Amendment, but should be analyzed under the multi-factor Penn Central test. | 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