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 Flashcards
History, Theory and Law 5: Legal Cases
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| The US supreme court upheld a zoning ordinance that denied approval of a rezoning application for the creation of low income housing. Cause the ordinance did not violate the equal protection clause, it was not held to be in violate of fair housing laws. | Village of Arlington Heights vs. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp (1977) |
| According to the US Supreme Court, the city if could not prohibit this company from aquiring a permit to construct a group home for the mentally retarded. | City of Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Center, Inc (1985) |
| This case decided that the government could legally acquire the national battlefield because it fulfilled a public need. This case marked the first significant Supreme Curt case ruling on historic preservation. | US vs. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co. (1896) |
| This case ruled that historic preservation ordinances were constitutional because they fulfilled a valid public purpose. The business could not develop the airspace over grand central terminal because it was a designated historic landmark according to NYC | Penn Central Transportation Co vs. New York (1978) |
| Was a Supreme Court case upholding the constitutionally of zoning and created the basis for euclidean zoning. It ruled that zoning was a valid police power as long as it advanced public safety, welfare and morals. | Village of Euclid vs. Amber Realty Co. |
| If an absentee landowner leases land to another person who pollutes it without the landowners knowledge the landowner is partially liable for removing any hazardous waste. | Monsato vs. US (1989) |
| According to the eight circuut us court of appeals, the liability statutes within cerla can only be waived for acts of gof, acts of war, and unusual acts of a third party. | General Electric Co. vs. Litton Industrial Automation Systems |
| This case allowed the government to protect endangered species and their habitat by restricting land development. | Babbitt Vs. Sweet Home Chapter of Commerce for a Great Oregon (1996) |
| The USSC ruled that the government was not engaged in taking the property by refusing to let him fill his wetlands. | Palazzolo vs. State of Rhode Island (2001) |
| The NY court of appeals decided the state government could impose land use laws for purely aesthetic reasons. The family were forbidden from hanging rags and other unsighty articles from their clotheslines. | People vs. Stover (1963) |
| The USSC of Pennsylvania validated the Planned Unit Development, or PUD process. According to the court, PUD did not infringe upon the municipal comprehensive plan and did not grant extra legislative powers tot he planning commission. | Cheney vs. Village 2 at New Hope (1968) |
| USSC of appeals ruled that governments could preserve open space and small town character by managing growth in an orderly way. This upheld the City decisions to place annual limits on the number of building permits that developers could acquire. | Construction Industry Association of Sonoma Couty vs. City of Petaluma of 1971 |
| The City of LA prohibited non-commercial signs on public property; however the US supreme court ruled that such a prohibition infringed upon the first amendment. | City Council vs. Taxpayers of Vincent (1984) |
| According to the US Supreme Court, the city of renton was not violating the First Amendment when it prohibited the placement of adult theaters within 1000 feet of parks, schools, churches, and residences. | City of Renton vs. Playtime Theaters, Inc (1986) |
| According to the US Supreme Court, the CA Coast Commission was violating the unlawful takings clause when it forced the Nollan family to place a public easement on their beachfront property as a condition for building a house. | Nollan vs. California Costal Commission (1987) |
| The USSC ruled that LA has violated the taking clause when it required the church to place a public easement on its beahfront property in exchange for contracting a building. | First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale vs. County of LA (1987) |
| The USSC ruled in favor of a landowner who was challenging a coastal zone protection law denying him the right to build a house on his shorefront property. it denied the landowner an economic use of his property when such a use did not violate nuisance. | Lucas vs. South Carolina Coast Council (1992) |
| According to the USSC a city could not prohibit a person from placing a noncommercial sign within the window of a private residence. | City of Ladue vs. Gilleo (1994) |
| This case examined Hawaii's practice of limiting the rent payments that oil companies could charge dealers in exchange for service station leasing. | Lingle vs. Chevron USA Inc. (2005) |
| The USSC ruled that eminent domain was a vlid part of development and that the fairness of eminent domain would be determined by planning. the case upheld City of New Londo economic developement plan, stating that the city had not engaged in the taking. | Kelo vs. City of New London (2005) |
| According to the USCP, Belle Terre had the right to prevent three or more persons from living together if they were unrelated. This decision was intended to maintain the character of a single family neighborhood | Village of Belle Terre vs. Borass (1974) |
| According to the USSC, east cleveland could not create ordinances that prohibited closely related individuals from sharing occupancy. Furthermore, no city could define family in such a way that close relatives were excluded from living together. | Moore vs. City of East Cleveland (1977) |
| The agency passed regulations forbidding the development of certain undeveloped lots. Owner received approval sell his developemtn option however di not try to sell the development rights and instead sued the agency on ground that it had committed. | Suitum vs. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997) |
| The USSC ruled that government can require a person deed over portions of his or her personal property in order to obtain a building permit. In this instance, the City was not guilty when it required a local owner to use part of her land as a greenway. | Dolan vs. City of Tigard (1994) |
| The USSC ruled that developemnt moratoria do not necessarily constitute a taking and therefore, do not always require just compensation. | Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council vs. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) |
| The USSC ruled that governments could restrict land uses that were considered a nuisance. In this particular case, a LA ordinance banning a brickyard and brick kin was upheld. | Hadacheck vs. Sebastian (1915) |
| The USSC placed limitations on land use regulations, stating that overly restrictive regulations constituted a regulatory taking. The court applied a new standard to determine whetehr a regulatory taking required compensation. | Pennsylvania Coal co. vs. Mahon (1926) |
| The USSC ruled that eminent domain could be exercise for purposes of redeveloping and aestheetically improving property in need of repair. | Berman vs. Parker (1964) |
| According to the New Jersey Supreme Court, Mount Laurel could not create exclusionary zoning ordinances that prohibited low and middle income housing from being constructed in certain areas. | Southern Burlington NAACP vs. Township of Mount Laurel Mt. Laurel 1 (1975) |
| Because Mount Laurel was not complying with the previous fair shae ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court was forced to take additional measures. | Southern Burlington NAACP vs. Township of Mount Laurel Mt. Laurel 2 (1983) |
| AZ appeals forced the movement of a large cattle operation in order to make way for increased urban development, the court also required the developers to compensate the cattle operations for expense and damages. | Spurs Industries, Inc vs. Del E Webb Development Co. |
| According to the NYC of appeals, local governments could regulate urban growth by limiting and controlling the subdivision of land. In this case, the court ruled that the town could deny building permits on the basis of lack of public and utility services | Golden vs. Planning Board of the Town Ramapo (1972) |
| According to the CA supremem court, city ordinances can stop urban development if the proper school, sewer, and water facilities are not in place | Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay Inc vs. City of Livermore (1976) |
| The USSC ruled that a zoning ordinance did not violate the First Amendment when tey restricted the placement of adult movie theaters. | Young vs. American Mini Theaters Inc (1976) |
| According to the US supreme court, a state law was engaging in an unlawful regulatory taking when it required property owners to allow the installation of cable tv equipment on their premises. | Loretto vs. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV corp (1982) |
| The entity attempted to sue the US Forest service because it allowed a ski resort to be constructed in the sequoia national forest. | Sieera Club vs. Morton (1972) |
| The secretary of Interior can determine wheter or not a federal activity could harm a threatened or endangerd species. This decision stopped construction of a $100 million dam. | Tennessee Valley Authority vs. Hill (1978) |
| According to the US Supreme Court, the City of Tiburon in CA did not engage in the taking of property when it enforced its open space requirement. | Agins vs. Tiburon (1980) |
| According to the USSC all environmental impact reviews must consider alternatives plans that minimize environmental damage. This is known as the hard look doctrine. | Citizens to Preserve Overton Park Inc vs. Volpe (1971) |
| A DC circuit court examined the standards that the atomic energy commission uses to assess environmental impact and determined they did not meet NEPA requirements. | Calvert Coordinating Committee vs. US Atomic Energy Commission (1971) |
| This case upheld a zoning ordinance that prevented a private property owner from developing wetlands adjacent to a navigable waterway. Police power to enforce environmental protection regulations on private property, and that using such power did not equa | Just vs. Marinette County (1972) |
| what case is rational nexus | dolar v. tigard |
| what case is resonable related | nollan vs. California coastals commission |
Created by:
rodolfo.lopez