Busy. Please wait.
Log in with Clever

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
Sign up using Clever

Username is available taken
show password

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.
Your email address is only used to allow you to reset your password. See 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.
Didn't know it?
click below
Knew it?
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
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

Laws and Cases

AICP Prep: Laws and Cases

The Clean Water Act 1977; Amendment to Federal Water Pollutant Control Act of 1972. Requires a permit to discharge pollutants into a body of water. Regulates amount of water discharged and types of pollutants.
Clean Air Act passed in 1970; major amendments in 1977 & 1991. Air Quality Control Regions created; Fed. Gov't sets ambient standards and states create methods to enable standards to be met. Permits required to release pollutants into the air.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1969; created Council on Environmental Quality; requires that environmental impacts of a project be considered; Environmental Assessment is required via an Environmental Impact Assessment.
The Rivers and Harbors Act 1899; prohibited the construction of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over any navigable waterway and wharfs, piers, or jetties, and the excavation or fill of navigable waters in the U.S. without Congressional approval. l
The Water Pollutant Control Act 1948; allowed the Surgeon General to create a program Improving pollution and sanitation of surface and underground water. Allows Fed. Works Admin to help governments construct water treatment plants.
The Water Quality Act 1965; Established the Water Pollution Control Administration within the Dept. of the Interior. 1st time water quality was treated as an environmental concern and not public health.
The Clean Water Act 1966; provided construction grants for wastewater treatment facilities.
Coastal Zone Management Act 1972; amended in 1991; focused efforts to reduce polluted runoff in 29 coastal states
Federal Water Pollutant Control Act 1972; Amended Water Pollutant Act of 1948; broadened gov't authority over water pollution and placed authority for it under EPA. Changed enforcement to regulating amt of pollutants discharged from point sources.
Endangered Species Act 1973; amended 1988; provided protection of animal and plant species that the US Fish and Wildlife Service designates as threatened or endangered.
Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA 1978; promoted alternative energy sources, energy efficiency, and reduced dependence on foreign oil; created a market for non-utility power producers and requires competition in the utility industry.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 1980; created a $1.6 billion Superfund to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites and requires major industries to report annual releases of toxic wastes into the air, water, or ground.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 1976; amended 1986;gave EPA control of hazardous waste from "cradle to grave." management of hazardous waste, non-hazardous solid wastes. underground storage tanks for fuel and other substances
Toxic Substances Control Act 1976; provided EPA with responsibility for reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 1947; rewritten in 1972 and updated in 1996; established procedures for registering pesticides with the U.S. DOA and established labeling provisions; requres EPA to regulate use & sale of pesticides
Safe Drinking Water Act 1974 ; ensures that drinking water is safe. Protects both sources of drinking water and the water we drink
Executive Order 12898 issued by President Clinton in 1994; requires federal agencies make achieving environmental justice part of their mission by addressing disproportionate adverse impacts on minority and lo-income population.
Welch v. Swasey 1909: The Court establishes the right of municipalities to regulate building height.
Eubank v. City of Richmond 1912; The Court first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian 1915; The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. 1926; The court first upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Initially based on nuisance lawes. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge 1928; 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 1972; court upheld a system that awarded points to development proposals based on utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. Approval relied on reaching a given point #. Developers could increase points by building facilities.
construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma 1975; The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore 1976; Court upheld temporary moratorium on building permits.
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc. 2006; The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate greenhouse gases.
Rapanos v. United States 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 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. 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 1976; The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego 1981; 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 1984; The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance does not regulate the content of the sign. Aesthetics advance a legitimate state interest.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. 1986; Regulating secondary effects of adult entertainment is acceptable. City cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment. Does not have to guarantee land is available for a reasonable price though.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 Gov't may not regulate land use that imposes substantial burden on a religious assembly or institution w/out demonstrating that imposition is both to further a compelling gov't interest and is the least restrictive means that interest.
Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona 2014; The US Supreme Court found that the 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 1896; The Court ruled that 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 1922; The court found that if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. This was the first takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th Amendment.
Berman v. Parker 1954; The court held that 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 1976; NYC passed a regulation that required the placement of a public park on private property, leaving no income producing use of the 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 1978; The court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment backed expectations, and the character of the government action.
Agins v. City of Tiburon 1980; The Court upheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and determined this zoning was not a taking. Appellants had NOT started the review and approval process. No vested rights.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation 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.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles 1987; The court found that 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.
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis 1987; Pennsylvania's Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act prohibits coal mining that causes subsidence damage to pre-existing public buildings, dwellings, The Act was justified by the public interests protected by the Act.
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation 1987; The Court found that 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 1987; The Court found that regulations must serve a substantial public purpose and that exactions are valid as long as the exaction and the project are reasonably related.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 1992; The Court found that 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 1994; The Court found there must be a rational nexus between the exaction requirement and the development. The rough proportionality test was created from this case.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 1997;
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd. 1999; The Supreme Court upheld a jury award of $1.45 million in favor of the development based on the city's repeated denials of a development that conformed to the comp plan and zoning ordinance.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 2001; 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 2002; moratoria during comprehensive planning does not constitute a taking.
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc. 2005; Court overturned part of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent: regulation of property effects a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. This formula imprecise and inappropriate to determine if a taking has occurred.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams 2005; 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 2005; The Supreme Court ruled that a 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; 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; Is he government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until the land owner has agreed to dedicate land for a public use? yes if no specific regulation requiring the dedication exists.
Munn v. Illinois 1876; The Court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest. 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 1974;The court extended the concept of zoning under police power to include a community's desire for certain types of lifestyles. The court 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 1977; The US Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Village acted in a racially discriminatory manner and overturned the findings of the previous two courts. They remanded to the lower court for further consideration.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel 1975; 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 1997; The City of Boerne, Texas prohibited a church in a historic district from enlarging. The Supreme Court ruled that the act is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforcement powers of the fourteenth amendment.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center Inc. 1985; the denial of a special use permit was based on irrational prejudice against the intellectually disabled and hence was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Created by: Shellymayo81984
Popular Standardized Tests sets




Use these flashcards to help memorize information. Look at the large card and try to recall what is on the other side. Then click the card to flip it. If you knew the answer, click the green Know box. Otherwise, click the red Don't know box.

When you've placed seven or more cards in the Don't know box, click "retry" to try those cards again.

If you've accidentally put the card in the wrong box, just click on the card to take it out of the box.

You can also use your keyboard to move the cards as follows:

If you are logged in to your account, this website will remember which cards you know and don't know so that they are in the same box the next time you log in.

When you need a break, try one of the other activities listed below the flashcards like Matching, Snowman, or Hungry Bug. Although it may feel like you're playing a game, your brain is still making more connections with the information to help you out.

To see how well you know the information, try the Quiz or Test activity.

Pass complete!
"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
restart all cards