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
AICP Planning Law 3
Landmark Planning Law Cases to 1949.
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Munn v Illinois (1876) | 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 |
| Cochran v Preston (1908) | 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) | Upheld a Boston law that differentiated height restriction between commercial & residential areas. Determined that height controls were a legitimate excersise of police powers. |
| Eubank v City of Richmond (1912) | Overturned a Richmond ordinance that enabled a set of property owners from controling the private rights of others in the neighborhood. Resulted in a deprivation of due process & equal protection. |
| Hadacheck v Sebastian | 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) | Upheld law that allowed community members to vote on whether a billboard would be allowed in the neighborhood. Determined erection of billboards could negatively impact community's health, safety, & welfare. |
| Town of Windsor, CT v Whitney (1920) | Court held that cities could require developers to provide a development plan that included the layout (location, width, and building placement, and infrastructure placement) for highways & roads. |
| Romar Realty v Board of Commissioners (1921) | Overturned a law which sought to establish building heights & lot lines expressly for "aesthetic considerations" because such concerns do not impact health, safety, & welfare of a community. |
| Inspector of Building of Lowell v Stoklosa (1924) | Upheld city ordinance which created sepate areas/zones for business & residential areas. |
| Zahn v Public Works of LA (1925) | 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) | Upheld zoning ordinance that separated "uncompatible" land uses |
| Washington Ex Rel. Seattle Trust Co v Roberge | Overturned an ordinance that arbitrarily delegated power to determine acceptance of child/senior home to the surrounding property owners. Violation of due process. |
| Jones v City of Los Angeles (1930) | 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" |
| Dowsey v Kensington (1931) | 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) | Overturned a Chicago ordinance which delegated zoning appeals to another body that had not been elected by the citizens without providing standards for ruling & criteria for judgement which resulted in the body having arbitrary authority. |
| US v Certain Lands, City of Louisville (1935) | Overturned a proposed US gov't action to secure lands through condemnation for purpose of cleaning slums as a provision of the National Industrial Recovery Act. Determined the federal gov't has no police powers in local land use concerns. |
| NYC Housing Authority v Muller (1936) | Upheld a NYC action to condem private property to place city owned & operated housing projects on it. Housing for poor/low income is a legitimate use concern for police powers. |
| Austin v Older (1938) | 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) | Upheld the right for a city to condem slums/blighted areas for public ownership & that levying taxes for said purpose is a legitimate exercise of a governments taxation powers. |
| Ayres v City of L.A. (1949) | 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. |
Created by:
kathie_we
Popular U.S. History sets