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 legal by Dave h
| Case | Year and topic |
|---|---|
| Welch swasey | 1909 building height |
| Eubank v city of richmond | 1912 setbacks |
| Hadacheck v sebastian | 1915 land use location regulation |
| Village of Euclid v ambler realty | 1926 zoning is proper use of police power, based on nuisance |
| Nectow v city of cambridge | 1928 zoning denied, requires valid public purpose e.g. health safety morals public welfare (rational basis test) |
| Golden v ramapo | 1972 upheld growth mange mentioned system based on points-based evaluation of proposals (using infrastructure) |
| Construction industry of Sonoma County v petaluma | 1975 upheld quotas on annual building permits |
| Home builders of greater east bay v city of livermore | 1976 upheld temporary moratorium on building permits |
| Brandt revocable trust v united states | 2013 railway easements revert to owner when abandoned |
| Massachusetts v EPA | 2006 epa must justify why they would not regulate GHGs |
| Rapanos v US | 2006 army core of engineers must determine nexus between wetland and navigable waterway |
| SD Warren v Maine EPA | 2006 hydro dams are subject to clean water act |
| Texas dept of housing and communityaffairs v inclusive community project | 2015 something about fair housing act, disparate impact, and inadvertent relegating minorities to poor areas |
| Young v American mini theatres | 1976 upheld zoning that decentralized adult biz in detroit |
| Metro media v San diego | 1981 commercial and non comm speech, can't ban, off premises signs |
| City council v taxpayers for vincent | 1984 a aesthetic sign regs okay, just not content |
| Renton v playtime theatres | 1986 Can't entirely restrict adult biz, but can control time place etc, and don't have to guarantee land |
| Religious land use and institutionalized persons act | 2000 can't impose burden on religious assembly |
| Reed v Gilbert arizona | 2014 signage for church in a school, town could not restrict |
| US v Gettysburg electric railway co | 1896 acquisition of battlefield was valid public purpose, historic preservation |
| Penn coal v mahon | 1922 regs went too far = taking |
| Berman v parker | 1954 aesthetics is valid public purpose |
| Fred french v cit of new york | 1976 denied a regular requiring a park in a development, leaving no income producing use |
| Penn central v city of new york | 1978 grand central, landmark preservation law, not a taking. Taking based on diminution of value, investment backed expectations |
| Agins v city of tiburon | 1980 upheld right to zone low density. Owners had 5 acres and sued for more density e.g. taking / compensation |
| Loretto v teleprompter | 1982 physical occupation is a taking. Cable company installed cables to serve tenants = occupation |
| Lutheran Church of Glendale v county of LA | 1987 making property unusable for a short time = taking |
| Keystone bituminous coal v debenedictus | 1987 act protecting homes against subsidence, must leave 50% of coal, is not a taking |
| FCC v Florida power | 1987 regulation of rent for cable use of telephone pole is not a taking. |
| Nollan v California coastal commission | 1987 involved public access to beach, required exactions to be reasonably related to development |
| Lucas v south Carolina coastal commission | |
| 1992 there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value. | |
| Dolan v tigard | 1994 must be rational nexus between exactions and development. Rough proportionality test created. |
| Suitum v Tahoe rpa | 1997 owner does not need to attempt to sell in order to sue for a taking |
| Monterey v del montessori dunes | 1999 city had to pay developer for denying approval for a probject that that was in compliance with comp plan and zoning |
| Palazzolo v Rhode island | 2001 a claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation |
| Tahoe Sierra preservation council v Tahoe rpa | 2002 development moratorium while developing a comp plan is not a taking |
| Lingle v chevron | 2005 regulation is a taking if it does not substantially advance state interests |
| Rancho Palos v abrams | 2005 something about telecommunications act |
| Kelo v city of new london | 2005 ec development is valid use of eminent domain |
| Stop the beach renourishment v Florida dept of environmental protection | 2009 submerged lands to be filled by state was not a taking from waterfront property owners |
| Koontz v st johns river water mgmt | 2012 a taking for requiring mitigation work and land dedication before approving permit |
| Munn v Illinois | 1876 allowed public regulation of private business in the public interest. Price regulation not a taking or violation of due process |
| Belle terre v boaraas | 1974 extended the concept of zoning to include a desire for certain types of lifestyles.. reg prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together |
| Village of Arlington Heights v metropolitan housing development corp | 1977 related to racially discriminationatory zoning when village denied upzoning from single to multifamily |
| Southern burlington county naacp v township of mount laurel | 1975 exclusionary zoning, required town to open doors to other income levels |
| City of Boerne v flores | 1997 challenged religious freedom restoration act, regarding expansion of church in texas. Court found that Act exceeded congressional powers. |
Created by:
davehohenschau
Popular Law sets