| Question |
Answer |
| 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. |
