Question 1

BOVE v. DONNER-HANNA COKE CORP. (1932)

Accepted Answer

Nuisance doesn't apply when one intentionally locates to a known industrial area, even if the source of the nuisance didn't exist when they moved there. The physical nature, social value, extent, and duration, and whether they came to the nuissance

Question 2

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926)

Accepted Answer

The zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the village's police power and did not have the character of arbitrary fiat, and thus it was not unconstitutional. FIrst significant case regarding zoning; greatly bolstered zoning ordinances in US

Question 3

Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)

Accepted Answer

A zoning ordinance was struck down bc it had no valid pubic
purpose (health, safety, welfare, etc.). The rational basis test (i.e., lower level scrutiny) is used here.It, along with Euclid v. Ambler, makes up the Supreme Court's case law on zoning.

Question 4

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel I (1975) & II (1983)

Accepted Answer

Equal Protection. The Court overturned townships zoning ordinance bc it violated fair housing laws of the NJ; failed to accommodate a "fair share" of prospective regional housing for low-income persons). 2nd case forced a specific fair housing scheme

Question 5

PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO. v. MAHON (1922)

Accepted Answer

The state exceeded its police powers by significantly diminishing the value of the land with no public interest reason to do so. The Court reasoned that "if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking."Takings Clause/5th Amendment.

Question 6

LORETTO v. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP. (1982)

Accepted Answer

The court found that where there is a physical occupation, there is a taking. The cable television company installed cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building and to serve other buildings.

Question 7

LUCAS v.
SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [1992]

Accepted Answer

the "total takings" test. If the regulation is not based on a public nuisance statute, and the regulation causes the property to lose all economic value, then it is a taking. Lucas had beach front property that SC said he couldn’t develop.

Question 8

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; (1978)

Accepted Answer

Taking? 1) economic impact of law & investment backed expectations; 2) character of the regulation; 3) whether the regulation sufficiently deprives property or rights. Court ruled that Landmark Preservation Law as applied to Grand Central wasn't a taking

Question 9

NOLLAN v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [1987]

Accepted Answer

If regulation involves exaction, then it's a taking unless it passes the “rational nexus” test: logical connection b/w the governmental action & its goal? California Coastal Commission's requirement of an easement for public beach access wasn't reasonable

Question 10

DOLAN v. TIGARD [1994]

Accepted Answer

If the regulation involves an exaction, then it will be found to constitute a taking unless it passes the both “rational nexus” test and the “rough proportionality” test. Bike path in exchange for building expansion.

Question 11

VILLAGE OF BELLE TERRE v. BORAAS (1974)

Accepted Answer

Court upheld constitutionality of zoning ordinance that limited the number of unrelated individuals that can live together. not protected class discrimination, no fundamental right infringed. Ordinance served a compelling state interest. Equal Protection

Question 12

VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS v. METROPOLITAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. [1977]

Accepted Answer

Dealt with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a neighborhood. The Court held that the ordinance was constitutional.
Does the unequal treatment of groups invo

Term	Definition
BOVE v. DONNER-HANNA COKE CORP. (1932)	Nuisance doesn't apply when one intentionally locates to a known industrial area, even if the source of the nuisance didn't exist when they moved there. The physical nature, social value, extent, and duration, and whether they came to the nuissance
A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (SZEA), 1926
A Standard City Planning Enabling Act (SCPEA), 1928
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926)	The zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the village's police power and did not have the character of arbitrary fiat, and thus it was not unconstitutional. FIrst significant case regarding zoning; greatly bolstered zoning ordinances in US
Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)	A zoning ordinance was struck down bc it had no valid pubic purpose (health, safety, welfare, etc.). The rational basis test (i.e., lower level scrutiny) is used here.It, along with Euclid v. Ambler, makes up the Supreme Court's case law on zoning.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel I (1975) & II (1983)	Equal Protection. The Court overturned townships zoning ordinance bc it violated fair housing laws of the NJ; failed to accommodate a "fair share" of prospective regional housing for low-income persons). 2nd case forced a specific fair housing scheme
PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO. v. MAHON (1922)	The state exceeded its police powers by significantly diminishing the value of the land with no public interest reason to do so. The Court reasoned that "if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking."Takings Clause/5th Amendment.
LORETTO v. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP. (1982)	The court found that where there is a physical occupation, there is a taking. The cable television company installed cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building and to serve other buildings.
LUCAS v. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [1992]	the "total takings" test. If the regulation is not based on a public nuisance statute, and the regulation causes the property to lose all economic value, then it is a taking. Lucas had beach front property that SC said he couldn’t develop.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; (1978)	Taking? 1) economic impact of law & investment backed expectations; 2) character of the regulation; 3) whether the regulation sufficiently deprives property or rights. Court ruled that Landmark Preservation Law as applied to Grand Central wasn't a taking
NOLLAN v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [1987]	If regulation involves exaction, then it's a taking unless it passes the “rational nexus” test: logical connection b/w the governmental action & its goal? California Coastal Commission's requirement of an easement for public beach access wasn't reasonable
DOLAN v. TIGARD [1994]	If the regulation involves an exaction, then it will be found to constitute a taking unless it passes the both “rational nexus” test and the “rough proportionality” test. Bike path in exchange for building expansion.
VILLAGE OF BELLE TERRE v. BORAAS (1974)	Court upheld constitutionality of zoning ordinance that limited the number of unrelated individuals that can live together. not protected class discrimination, no fundamental right infringed. Ordinance served a compelling state interest. Equal Protection
VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS v. METROPOLITAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. [1977]	Dealt with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a neighborhood. The Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. Does the unequal treatment of groups invo

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:

AICP Law Stuff