Landmark Planning Law Cases to 1949.
Help!
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| show | In this case which concerned whether a grain operator had to comply with city ordinances, the court ruled that private property becomes a public interest when it is used in a manner which affect the community at large
🗑
|
||||
| show | Determined that Baltimore could control height based on the concern that excesive height could pose a fire hazard. Established a nexus between legislative intent & legislative standard.
🗑
|
||||
| Welch v Sawsey (1909) | show 🗑
|
||||
| Eubank v City of Richmond (1912) | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Upheld L.A. law that prevented landowners from manufacturing bricks on private property because the property had been annexed into the city & the excavation of the valuable soil was not restricted.
🗑
|
||||
| Thomas Cusack Co v City of Chicago (1917) | show 🗑
|
||||
| Town of Windsor, CT v Whitney (1920) | show 🗑
|
||||
| Romar Realty v Board of Commissioners (1921) | show 🗑
|
||||
| Inspector of Building of Lowell v Stoklosa (1924) | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Upheld legislation that prohibited business uses in residential areas even if it diminished some of the property's value and there were business operations existing in the area that had been established prior to the zoning change.
🗑
|
||||
| Euchlid v Ambler Realty (1926) | show 🗑
|
||||
| Washington Ex Rel. Seattle Trust Co v Roberge | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Overturned part of a legislation that sought to cause exisiting businesses to cease once a new zoning classification was placed upon it. Upheld idea of "nonconforming uses"
🗑
|
||||
| show | Found that there is fine line between reasonable use of police powers to restrict lawful use of private property and takings. Determined that the ordinance stepped over the line & deemed unconstitutional.
🗑
|
||||
| Welton v Hamilton (1931) | show 🗑
|
||||
| US v Certain Lands, City of Louisville (1935) | show 🗑
|
||||
| NYC Housing Authority v Muller (1936) | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Upheld a Michigan city ordinance that prevented an existing non-comforming use to place a second nonconforming structure on the property.
🗑
|
||||
| People of Tuoky v City of Chicago (1946) | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Upheld the right for the LA planning commission to place conditions on a development during the review process. A nexus existed between the development conditions & protection of public interests.
🗑
|
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:
kathie_we
Popular U.S. History sets