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.

Remove ads
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

Aicp legal by Dave h

CaseYear 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