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
APA Law
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Nuisance Law | An unreasonable interference with rights to the use and enjoyment of land |
| Police Power | The police power (regulatory power) held by the states and is typically delegated to local governments. State constitution or state statute may authorize local governments generally to exercise certain specific powers. |
| 1st Amendment | Free Speech - Signs & Adult Entertainment Freedom of Religion - RLUIPA (Religious Land use and Institutionalized Persons Act) |
| 5th Amendment | Substantive Due Process: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property Major factors: Legitimate Governmental Purpose Rational Relationship “Takings” Cases – federal level |
| 14th Amendment | Due Process: Applies the 5th Amendment to state and local government Equal Protection “Takings” Cases – state and local level |
| Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976) | 1st Amendment: Regulations requiring separation of adult establishments from certain other uses not unconstitutional. |
| City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres (1986) | 1st Amendment: Adult uses adequately accommodated, regulations upheld as reasonable time, place, & manner restrictions. |
| CIty of Erie v. Pap's AM (2000) | 1st Amendment: Regulations requiring exotic dancers to wear minimal clothing not violation of freedom of expression. |
| Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984) | 1st Amendment: Ban on signs within public rights-of-way not violation of free speech. |
| Metromedia Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981) | 1st Amendment: Ordinance invalidated that placed tighter restrictions on signs bearing non-commercial messages than on commercial billboards. |
| City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) | 1st Amendment: Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Ruled unconstitutional as beyond legislative authority. |
| Cambodian Buddhist Society of CT, Inc. v. Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission (2008) | 1st Amendment: Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Ruled that nuisance of use outweighed RLUIPA. |
| Dillon's Rule | The only powers that a municipal corporation may exercise are those expressly granted |
| Home Rule | State constitution or state statutes provide for home rule for local governments. Local government must typically adopt a charter that incorporates or refers to those powers |
| Due Process | - 5th: “(No person) shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." - 14th applicable to state and local - Promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. May not be arbitrary and capricious; reasonable |
| Legitimate Governmental Purpose | Regulatory measures must be justified as promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Actions may not be arbitrary and capricious and must be reasonable. |
| Rational Relationship | A conceivable, believable, reasonable relationship; means must be reasonably necessary to its accomplishment. |
| Golden v. Ramapo (1972) | Due Process/Growth management: Adequate public facilities program upheld. |
| Construction Industry Association, Sonoma County vs. City of Petaluma (1976) | Due Process/Growth management: System establishing annual building permit cap upheld. |
| Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) | Due Process/Historic Preservation: New York City's landmarks preservation law upheld as applied to the Grand Central Terminal where owner could transfer development rights. “Balancing Test”. Also Equal Protection and Takings case. |
| Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (1974) | Due Process/Occupancy Restrictions: Limit of no more than two unrelated person living as unit not unconstitutional. Also Equal Protection, Freedom of Association case. |
| Moore v. City of East Celevland (1977) | Due Process/Occupancy Restrictions: Limit on related persons living together as unit is unconstitutional. |
| Welsh v. Swasey (1909) | Zoning/Pre-Zoning Regulations: Height limitations upheld. Due Process. |
| Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) | Zoning/Pre-Zoning Regulations: Prohibition on certain industrial uses upheld. Nuisances test. Due Process/Takings. |
| Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) | Zoning: Upheld general zoning ordinance that creates geographic districts and excludes certain uses from such districts is a valid exercise of the police power and does not violate due process or equal protection. Established “public welfare”. |
| Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928) | Zoning: Overturned a zoning regulation based upon Due Process. |
| Jones v. City of Los Angeles (1930) | Non-conforming uses: Retroactive ordinance was found to be an invalid use of police power - Mental Health Facility |
| Austin v. Older (1938) | Non-conforming uses: Allows limitation on expanding non-conforming use |
| Ayres v. City of Los Angeles (1949) | Zoning: Validity of Zoning Conditions - Legal nexus |
| City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises (1976) | Zoning Referendum: No violation if zoning map may be amended by citizen referendum. Due Process. |
| City of Edmonds v. Oxford House (1995) | Occupancy Restrictions/Group Homes: Zoning restrictions on unrelated persons living together subject to act. Federal Fair Housing Act |
| Taking | A restriction of the use of privately owned land, or the actual taking of the land through eminent domain by governmental entities, without fair payment and/or without any benefit to the public. Arises from the 5th and 14th Amendments. |
| Taking is constitutional if... | It destroys an existing nuisance. Does not prohibit all future use. |
| Taking is not constitutional if... | There is no compensation (either when the taking is permanent or temporary). The land is physically invaded or occupied private land. |
| Factors of a Taking | Diminution in value Confiscation Average reciprocity of advantage (all owners subject to common restriction) Balancing (harm to owner exceeds benefits conferred by the restriction on the public) |
| Rational Nexus | Established in Nollan. Is the exaction directly related to a governmental interest? |
| Rough Proportionality | Established in Dolan. Is the magnitude of the public exaction proportionate to the impact of the development/private property? |
| Substantially Advances Test | Established in Agins. For a taking cases to be constitutional, it must not deprive a land of all economically valuable use AND it must advance a legitimate governmental interest. Struck down by Lingle. |
| Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922) | Takings/Regulatory Restriction: Established the rule of regulatory takings. Diminution in value of property. |
| Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) | Takings/Restrictions on Land Use: Established the “substantially advances” test. |
| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) | Takings/Regulatory Restriction: Established the permanent physical presence test for regulatory takings. |
| Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) | Takings/Developer Exactions: Development condition must be sufficiently related to program purpose. Established rational nexus test. |
| First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles (1987) | Takings/Development Moratorium: U.S. Constitution compels payment of temporary damages if “taking” found. |
| Keystone Bituminous Coal Assoc. v. DeBenedictis (1987) | Takings/Restrictions on Land Use: No facial taking where coal mining operations prohibited from causing subsidence damage to surface structures; use of whole parcel considered. |
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) | Takings/Restrictions on Land Use: Coastal setback prohibiting all practical use amounts to taking. Compensation required where regulation takes all economic use of land. |
| Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) | Takings/Developer Exactions: Applicability of rough proportionality test. Extends Nollan “rational nexus test” through rough proportionality. |
| Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) | Takings/Investment Expectations, Land Use: Takings analysis not irrelevant simply because new owner acquired property after new regulations became effective; uses of whole parcel considered. |
| Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. TRPA (2002) | Takings/Development Moratorium: “Mere enactment” of moratorium does not affect a taking of property. |
| Lingle v. Chevron USA (2005) | Takings/Commercial Rent Control: Inapplicability of “substantially advances” test established by Agins. |
| San Ramos Hotel v. San Francisco (2005) | Takings/Local v. Federal: State courts are fully competent to adjudicate constitutional challenges to local land-use decisions. |
| Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013) | Takings/Developer Exactions: This case reaffirmed the “Nollan/Dolan” test and further held that “improper coercion” can occur with a denial as well as an improper approval. |
| Public Use | 5th Amendment: "Private property (shall not) be taken for public use, without just compensation." Provision is made applicable to state and local governments by 14th Amendment. |
| Berman v.Parker (1954) | Public Use in Eminent Domain: Allow use of eminent domain to acquire blighted properties through urban redevelopment program to be cleared, replatted, and then resold to private parties in accordance with a redevelopment plan. |
| Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) | Public Use in Eminent Domain: Hawaiian land reform legislation involved public use. |
| Kelo v. City of New London (2005) | Public Use in Eminent Domain: Allows use of eminent domain to acquire properties that are NOT blighted for clearance and resale to private developers in accordance with a redevelopment plan. |
| Equal Protection Clause | Established by the 14th Amendment. "No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Requires only that similarly situated people (and their property) be treated in a similar way. |
| Rational basis test | Equal protection test: Court will uphold a classification if it finds a rational basis for its justification. Most classifications in planning reviewed under this test and most are upheld. |
| Strict scrutiny test | Equal protection test: Classification applies to a suspect class or burdens a fundamental interest, and then government must show compelling interest to justify classification. Racial classifications are treated as suspect under the strict scrutiny test. |
| Intermediate test | Equal protection test: Courts occasionally use a third test and ask whether the means selected substantially further the purposes of the legislation. |
| NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel I (1975) | Equal Protection/Housing: New Jersey Constitution violated if “developing” community fails to accommodate a "fair share" of prospective regional housing needs of low- and moderate-income persons |
| Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. (1978) | Equal Protection/Housing: Refusal to rezone to accommodate a low- and moderate-income housing project not violation of equal protection despite adverse, disproportionate impact on African-Americans. |
| NAACP v.Township of Mount Laurel II (1983) | Equal Protection/Housing: Obligation to accommodate extends not just to "developing" communities but also to all municipalities classified by state as growth areas. |
| City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center Inc. (1985) | Equal Protection/Group Homes: Requirement of a special use permit for a group home for the mentally retarded when not required for similar uses violated equal protection. |
Created by:
consterr
Popular Standardized Tests sets