Busy. Please wait.
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
or

Username is available taken
show password

why


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.


Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.
Don't know
Know
remaining cards
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards
share
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

2015AICPHistTheyLaw

Law

TermDefinition
Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909) Zoning. The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height.
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912) Zoning. The Court first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915) Zoning. The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926) Zoning. The Court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. The court first upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman attorney on case.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928) Zoning. The Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public).
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972) The court upheld growth mgmt system that awarded points based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. Approved upon reaching point level. Developers could reach point total by providing facilities
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975) Growth Mgmt Cases. The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976) Growth Mgmt Cases. The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate greenhouse gases.
Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) The Court found that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.; US Supreme Court (2015) The Court held that Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act. The result is that policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violates the Fair Housing Act.
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1976) First Amendment. The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981) First Amendment. The Court found that commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned non-commercial signs.
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court (1984) First Amendment. regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as ordinance doesn't regulate content of sign. If sign content is regulated, it must be a compelling governmental interest. Aesthetics advance a legitimate state interest.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986) First Amendment. Court upheld zoning ordinance that limited SOBs to a single zoning district. Placing restrictions on time, place, and manner is acceptable. The city doesnt have to guarantee available land, reasonable prices; just cant prohibit it
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 First Amendment. Passed after City of Boerne v. Flores ruling: no gvmt may implement land use reg in a manner that imposes substantial burden on the religious assembly, unless imposition of burden is compelling gvmt interest and is the least restrictive
Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014) City cannot impose more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages. The Court found the sign ordinance was not content neutral.
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; U.S. Supreme Court (1896) Fifth Amendment. The acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose. This was the first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (1922) Fifth Amendment. If a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. This was the first takings ruling and defined a taking.
Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954) Fifth Amendment. Aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The court found that urban renewal was a valid public purpose.
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York; New York Court of Appeals (1976) Fifth Amendment. In this case, the city had put in place a regulation that required a public park on private property w/o income to property.The Court invalidated the regulation, but it was not ruled as a taking that should receive compensation.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978) Fifth Amendment. Taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment backed expectations, and the character of the action. The court found New York City Landmark Preservation Law did not constitute a taking.
Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980) Fifth Amendment. Uupheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and determined this zoning was not a taking. Owner did not file the correct permits to come to court. City may have approved their request.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982) Fifth Amendment. Where there is a physical occupation, there is a taking. The cable company installed cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building; owner claimed accessing their property was a taking.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (1987) Fifth Amendment. If a property is unusable for a period of time, then not only can the ordinance be set aside, but the property owner can subject the government to pay for damages. County could either purchase or revoke ordinance.
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis; U.S. Supreme Court (1987) Fifth Amendment. The enactment of regulations to keep 50% of coal beneath four protected structures to be kept in place to provide surface support, did not constitute a taking.
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1987) Fifth Amendment. A taking had not occurred. The public utilities challenged a federal statute that authorized the Federal Communications Commission to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987) Fifth Amendment. Regulations must serve a substantial public purpose and that exactions are valid as long as the exaction and the project are reasonably related. Exactions were not related. It was a taking.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992) Fifth Amendment. There is a taking if there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left) after the regulation is in place, except where derived from the state's law of property and nuisance.
Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994) Fifth Amendment. There must be a rational nexus between the exaction requirement and the development. The rough proportionality test was created from this case. Was a taking.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; U.S. Supreme Court (1997) Fifth Amendment. Should an owner attempt to sell their development rights before claiming a regulatory taking of property without just compensation? Suitum's property was ripe for adjudication.
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; U.S. Supreme Court (1999) Fifth Amendment. Upheld a jury award of $1.45 million in favor of the development based on the city's repeated denials of a development permit for a 190 acres that was in alignment with Zoning and Comp Plan.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001) Fifth Amendment. Land owner was denied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club. Supreme Court found acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims.
Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; U.S. Supreme Court (2002) Fifth Amendment. The Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation. The imposed two moratoria on development was temporary while the agency formulated a comprehensive plan.
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005) Fifth Amendment. The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent, declaring that regulation of property effects a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; U.S. Supreme Court (2005) Fifth Amendment. The Court ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied conditional use permit for an antenna cannot seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court (2005) Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that an economic development is a valid use of eminent domain. The court found that it is not in a position to determine the amount or character of land needed for a particular public project.
Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009) Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state did not represent a taking to the waterfront property owners.
Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management (2012) Fifth Amendment. Request to develop additional land beyond what was allowed under the original permit. Authority agreed to issue permit on the condition that Koontz deed the rest of property into a conservation and do mitigation work. A taking.
Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court (1876) Fourteenth Amendment. State law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. The Court found that the regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good.
Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court (1974) Fourteenth Amendment. The community has the power to control lifestyle and values.Upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single family.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court (1977) Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low- and moderate-housing. There was insufficient evidence to prove that the Village acted in a racially discriminatory manner.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975) Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing. The court required the Town to open its doors to those of all income levels.
City of Boerne v. Flores; U.S. Supreme Court (1997) Fourteenth Amendment. Case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The City of Boerne, TX prohibited a church in a historic district from enlarging. Ruled the act is unconstitutional congressional powers that exceed the powers of the 14th amend.
First Amendment Freedom of Speech (adult uses and signs), Freedom of Religion (religious facilities), and Freedom of Association (group homes).
Fifth Amendment Just compensation for takings and eminent domain
Fourteenth Amendment Due process (takings, eminent domain and exactions), substantive due process (aesthetics), procedural due process (ordinanes), and equal protection (exclusionary zoning)
Created by: cristinrae21