Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
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 Prep 2013
Law
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) | The U.S. Supreme Court indicated, for the first time, that regulation of land use might be a taking. |
| Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.(1926) | Established zoning as a valid exercise of police power by local government. |
| Berman v. Parker (1954) | Established aesthetics and redevelopment as valid public purposes for exercising the power of eminent domain. |
| Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc. (1968) | Legitimized the planned unit development (PUD) process. |
| Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971) | Established the “hard look” doctrine for environmental impact review. |
| Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (DC 1971) | Made National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements judicially enforceable. |
| Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) | Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies. |
| Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo (NY 1972) | Recognized growth phasing programs. |
| Just v. Marinette County (WI 1972) | Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme. |
| Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County (OR 1973) | Required zoning to be consistent with comprehensive plans and recognized that rezonings may be quasi-judicial as well as legislative. |
| Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc (1976) | Opened up the possibility to control pornography via land use. Special requirements applicable to adult theatres and bookstores upheld. |
| Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977) | Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts. |
| Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978) | Created modern Endangered Species Act law (protecting the snail darter). U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision held that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits the completion and operation of the Tellico Dam. |
| Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978) | Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York |
| *Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) | Used an alternative takings test to the Penn Central test. U.S. Supreme Court rules that the open space zoning ordinance of the city of Tiburon, California, does not result in a taking of property without payment of just compensation. |
| Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981) | 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 First Amendment. |
| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) | Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimis. |
| Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel (II) (NJ 1983) | Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning. |
| *Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985) | Defined the ripeness doctrine for judicial review of takings claims. |
| *First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County (1987) | Allowed damages (as opposed to invalidation) as a remedy for regulatory takings. Just compensation clause of Fifth Amendment requires compensation for temporary takings which occur as a result of regulations ultimately invalidated in court. |
| Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) | Created the “essential nexus” takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications and exactions. |
| *Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) | Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principles of law. |
| *Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) | Extended Nollan’s “essential nexus” test to require “rough proportionality” between development impact and conditions. |
| Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) | Applied the Endangered Species Act to land development. |
| *Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) | 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 Fifth Amendment, but should be analyzed under the multi-factor Penn Central test. |
Created by:
lialligood
Popular Miscellaneous sets