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

Planning Law

Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013 The Court found that the 1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement for the railroad's land. When the railroad company abandons land, it should be settled as an easement and if the easement is abandoned, the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005 Fifth Amendment Chevron sued Hawaii, claimed that the statute’s rent cap effected a taking of property in violation of the 5th/14th Amendments Contrary Agins v. City of Tiburon, the test of whether a governmental regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to determining whether the regulation effects an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis; U.S. Supreme Court (1987 Fifth Amendment SCOTUS: not a taking. The Court found that the enactment of the Act was justified by the public interests protected by the Act. Pennsylvania's Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act prohibits coal mining that causes subsidence damage to pre-existing public buildings, dwellings, and cemeteries. The Act requires that 50 percent of the coal beneath four protected structures be kept in place to provide surface support. The Coal Association alleged that this constituted a taking.
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912 Zoning SCOTUS approved the use of setback regulations, but overturned the setbacks in this case. The court held that the ordinance was a valid use of police power.
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 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.
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 key question before the court was whether the Village of Euclid's zoning ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the constitution. The key outcome of the court was that it upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006 Does the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions from vehicles? SCOTUS: the Court held that the CAA gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. The Court found the current rationale for not regulating to be inadequate and required the agency to articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation.
Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management (2012 Fifth Amendment Koontz requested a permit to develop additional land beyond what was allowed under the original permit. St. John's agreed to issue the development permit if Koontz agreed to deed the rest of his property into a conservation area and do mitigation work. Because Koontz refused to undertake the mitigation work, St. John's denied the application. SCOTUS: is the govt liable for a taking when it denies a permit until the land owner has agreed to dedicate land for a public use? YES
City of Boerne v. Flores; U.S. Supreme Court (1997 Fourteenth Amendment This case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 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. In the end, the city and church came to an agreement to leave 80 percent of the church intact and allow a new 750-seat auditorium on the rear of the auditorium.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986 First Amendment The Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic and crime). there can be no absolute prohibition of free speech, but timing, location, and manner can be regulated
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982 Fifth Amendment 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. The property owner brought a class action suit claiming that allowing the cable company to occupy the land was a taking. SCOTUS: a physical invasion, no matter how small, is a taking and requires compensation. Damages were set at $1 because cable access increased property value
Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954 Fifth Amendment The court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The court found that urban renewal was a valid public purpose.
Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994 Fifth Amendment The Court found there must be a rational nexus between the exaction requirement and the development. Rough proportionality test was created from this case. The court found that conditions that require the deeding of portions of a property to the government can be justified where there is a relationship between the nature and extent of the proposed development.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001 Fifth Amendment Plaintiff claimed inverse condemnation against govt. The landowner was denied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club and was therefore an unlawful taking. SCOTUS: owner does not waive right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation being challenged; no statute of limitations on the exercise of constitutional rights; case dismissed, no loss of all value per Penn Central
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.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (1922 Fifth Amendment SCOTUS: State exceeded its police powers by diminishing value of land without a public interest. 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. Must look at three factors in balancing test Was their reasonable investment-backed expectation of value? Was nature of governmental action legitimate? What degree of loss was there?
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (1987 Fifth Amendment Temporary takings require compensation, such as moratorium on development rights 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. The court found that the County could either purchase the property out-right or revoke the ordinance and pay the church for its losses during the time of the trial.
Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014 First Amendment Church rented space in school and placed signs in the area announcing time and location of services. Sign ordinance restricts the size, number, duration and location of certain types of signs, including temporary signs. Church sued Gilbert claiming violalation of 1st amendment, equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. SCOTUS: can't impose more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages. Ordinance was not content neutral.
Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court (2006 Does the Clean Water Act's prohibition on unpermitted discharges to "navigable waters" extends to non-navigable wetlands that do not even abut navigable water? APA: urged the Court to acknowledge that isolated wetlands are important wetland resources requiring protection under Section 404. SCOTUS: Wetlands without a hydrological or ecological connection to other navigable waters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water 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. Dispersal strategy focuses on minimizing negative impacts on community; ok to use zoning to control sexually explicit uses
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981 First Amendment The Court found that commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs. no compelling state interest to prohibit
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; U.S. Supreme Court (1997 Fifth Amendment Do plaintiffs have a right to a jury trial over land-use regulations when they allege constitutional violations? SCOTUS: Yes. Upheld jury award of $1.45 million in favor of the development based on the city's repeated denials of a development permit for a residential complex on ocean front property. The development was in conformance with the city's comp plan and zoning ordinance. SCOTUS found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.
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.
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 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed two moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comprehensive plan for the area. A group of property owners sued, claiming a taking.
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1987 Fifth Amendment In this case, the Public utilities challenged a federal statute that authorized the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the rents charged by the utilities to cable television operators for the use of their utility poles. The Court rejected the takings claim because nothing in the statute required the utilities to act as lessors. Also, the utilities could avoid any occupation of their poles by evicting the cable operators.
City of Boerne v. Flores (2000 First Amendment As a result of this case, Congress passed RLUIPA. No government may implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of burden both is in furtherance of compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975 Growth Management The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987 Fifth Amendment 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 (essential nexus). The court also found that the California Coastal Commission's requirement to dedicate an easement for public beach access was not reasonable. Lateral beach access does nothing to further public knowledge of the beach to people on the other side of the property, on the public road.
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976 Growth Management The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.The California Supreme Court upheld the right of a city to time the phasing of development, contingent on performance standards being met
Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court (2005 Fifth Amendment The Supreme Court ruled that a economic development is a valid use of eminent domain, proof of blight or slum conditions not needed. The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Backlash from states, passed laws banning use of eminent domain solely for economic development
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972 Growth Management The court upheld a growth management system that required performance standards to obtain building permits, awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses (concurrency). A proposal would only be approved upon reaching a certain point level. Developers could increase their point total by providing the involved facilities themselves. Court: no exclusionary intent
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915 Zoning The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses. The court found that a zoning ordinance in Los Angeles that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses Provided that the restriction of future profitable uses was not a taking of property without just compensation.
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
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; U.S. Supreme Court (1997 Fifth Amendment Must an owner attempt to sell their development rights before claiming a regulatory taking of property without just compensation? SCOTUS: No. Found that Suitum's taking claim was ripe for adjudication. Plaintiff owned an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe. TRPA found that the lot could not be developed under the agencies' regulations, but that Suitum could sell the development rights under the Transfer of Development Rights program. Suitum sued claiming a taking requiring compensation.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992 Fifth Amendment SCOTUS: this is a per se/categorical taking; owner lost all value of property but not all his rights (he still had title to the property) Denied all economic use of the property = categorical taking, reaffirms Penn Coal case (loss of all value = compensatable taking as long as it’s not a nuisance)
Welch v. Swasey (1909 ZoningThe Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height. An act in 1905 in Massachusetts enabled the limitation of building heights and the court held that height discrimination is based on reasonable ground and a proper exercise of the police power of the state and does not violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978 Fifth Amendment City didn't prohibit use of all rights on the property, created a TDR for air rights above the station, owner can transfer those rights to other sites in Manhattan SCOTUS: a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Did not constitute a taking, which requires a loss of all reasonable use of the property; must evaluate the entire property, not just a portion of it (air rights)
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court (1977 Fourteenth Amendment SCOTUS: negative racial impact without proof of discriminatory intent does not violate 14th amendment equal protection clause, but Fair Housing Act may apply. Actual intent is much harder to prove
Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court (1876 Fourteenth Amendment The Court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. 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.
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court (1984 First Amendment 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. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The Court found that aesthetics advance a legitimate state interest. The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles.
Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980 Fifth Amendment The Court upheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and determined this zoning was not a taking. Without having sought approval for development of their tract under the ordinances, appellants brought suit against the city in state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional.
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.
Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court (1974 Fourteenth Amendment Equal protection and discrimination Redefined family to limit the number of people who could live together because of student housing SCOTUS: applied lowest level of scrutiny and upheld law saying it was fairly debatable (students are not a protected class). Community has power to control lifestyle and values. Extended concept of zoning to include community's desire for certain types of lifestyles.
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; U.S. Supreme Court (1896 Fifth Amendment 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.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.; US Supreme Court (2015 SCOTUS evaluated whether disparate impact is the appropriate standard in which to evaluate the impact of the Fair Housing Act. Plaintiff claimed that TDOHC was disproportionately granting tax credits to developments in minority neighborhoods and denying credits to developments within Caucasian neighborhoods. SCOTUS: Disparate impact is appropriate standard to be applied to the FHA. The result is that policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violates the Fair Housing Act.
Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Fifth Amendment 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. Can there be such as thing as a judicial taking if courts interpret property rights in a way that takes away the right a person thought they had in their property? Once property goes underwater it becomes state property (littoral rights) Implications: sea-level rise, climate change
Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. the City of Chicago First Amendment Challenged RLUIPA, In this case, the Court found that changes that the City made to their zoning ordinance brought the ordinance into compliance with RLUIPA.
Cutter v. Wilkinson, U.S. Supreme Court (2005. Does prohibiting the federal government from burdening prisoners' religious exercise violate the First Amendment's establishment clause? SCOTUS: The Court ruled that the RLUIPA is a constitutional religious accommodation under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Facilities that accept federal funds cannot deny prisoners accommodations that are necessary to engage in activities for the practice of their own religious beliefs.
Central Hudson Gas and Elec Corp v Public Service Comm (1980) Free Speech Central Hudson Gas and Elec Corp v Public Service Comm (1980)
Larkin v Grendel’s Den (1982) Freedom of religion (establishment) Churches and schools have veto power over alcohol permits within 500 feet; restaurant sues after church 10 feet away prevents him from getting liquor license SCOTUS: overturned; violation of establishment clause by giving police power to private entity; legislatures can’t delegate their responsibility to a church
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) Free Speech Jehovah’s Witness cases in 1930s and 40s Freedom of religion (free exercise) Local govts cannot require permits to hand out religious literature door to door
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v City of Hialeah Free Speech City ordinance bans ritual animal slaughter; practice is central to Santeria, makes exception for Muslim and Jewish kosher slaughter SCOTUS: overturned, targets a particular religion and is not a neutral law of general applicability
Oregon Employment Division v Smith (1940) Free Speech Native Americans employed by drug rehab smoke peyote as part of a ceremony; fired; denied unemployment benefits because of their misconduct SCOTUS: upholds firing, neutral, generally applicable law does not violate free exercise clause Big political stink ensues; congress struggles to define limits of official action RLUIPA (2000) Local land use regulations may not impose substantial burden on religious assemblies Protects incarcerated Muslims to practice their religion in prison
City of Cleburne v Cleburne Living Center (1985) Equal protection and discrimination Limited development of facility for mentally retarded SCOTUS: overturned law based on fairly debatable; too difficult to define mental retardation
Village of Willowbrook v Olech (2000) Equal protection and discrimination A class of one: What if there is only one person in a protected class? Town loaded unfair conditions on his permits SCOTUS: supports Olech, possible to have a class of one based on personal discrimination
Mugler v Kansas (1887) Zoning and Growth Management Law declared liquor sales to be a public nuisance Brewery owner got prosecuted Value of brewery collapsed SCOTUS: not a taking, not compensation due, not violation of due process law
Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp. Donner Hanna won.Nuisance doctrine does not apply where plaintiff intentionally locates within a known industrial area, regardless of whether the particular source of the nuisance existed at the time the plaintiff located there.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 1984. Midkiff won. State could use the eminent domain process to take land overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners (oligopoly in land ownership) and redistribute it to the wider population of private residents. Used Berman v. Parker decision Land did not have to be put into actual public use in order to use eminent domain. It is taking's purpose, not mechanics that were important. Eminent domain used to provide overall market benefit to wider populace.
RTM Media v. City of Houston (2009) City sued RTM for violating sign code and being public nuisance. RTM counter-sued claiming violation of 1st amendment rights (cannot distinguish between comm and noncomm speech). Appeals: agreed with city because comm signs are more numerous than noncomm signs, makes sense to distinguish between them if goal is to reduce number of signs to ameloriate traffic hazards and aesthetics. First case that allowed distinguishing between comm and noncomm speech, as long as legitimate govt interest is advanced.
Midwest Media v. City of Erlanger and City of Ft. Wright (2009) Sign permits denied due to size and height. M Media sued saying ordinance did not explain restrictions and advance legit govt interest. Appeals Court: disagreed, sided with cities. Just make sure your ordinance explains public purpose
Lynch v. California Coastal Commission (2015) The case deals with the authority of state or local government agencies to modify, rescind, or impose conditions setting time limits on permits in the event of a change in circumstances, such as sea level rise. The case is particularly important in the context of planning for climate change and potential hazard impacts. California SC sided with CCC.
Murr v. Wisconsin (2016) At issue is whether two legally distinct parcels under common ownership must be combined for a takings analysis. The brief argues that treating the two parcels as one for takings analysis is in keeping with established principles of land use law. SCOTUS: The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin was correct to analyze the lot owners' property as a single unit in assessing the effect of the challenged governmental action. No taking.
Magner v. Gallagher (2012) Issues: (1) Whether a lawsuit can be brought for a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on a practice that is not discriminatory on its own, but has a discriminatory effect; and, if so, (2) how should courts determine whether a practice has a discriminatory effect and violates the Act? SCOTUS: Dismissed
Continental Property Group, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis (2010) APA and its Minnesota Chapter urge the Minnesota Court of Appeals to reverse the district court's ruling that found the city had violated respondent's procedural due process on allegations of decision-maker bias. A city council member must not be held to the same standard as the judiciary when it hears cases; and there are state law procedures that provide appropriate and effective remedies for decision-maker bias.
Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (2010) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Center on Law and Poverty to urge the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc to affirm the decision of the District Court, which found the facial challenge to the city's rent control ordinance failed. Application of the Penn Central takings test to declare a local regulation facially unconstitutional is contrary to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of St. Paul (2009) Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals APA urged the Eighth Circuit to reverse the lower court's decision which had invalidated the City of St. Paul's sign code. APA maintains the lower court incorrectly required the city council to articulate reasons in the legislative record for adopting a law of general applicability, a novel approach that puts at risk countless of local laws that were adopted in the same fashion.
Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Board of County Commissioners (2009) Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Court: county's land use regulations effectively deprived church and other religious institutions of reasonable opportunities to practice their religion in violation of RLUIPA APA: Disagrees. Denial of an application to approve a larger church facility in an agricultural zone is not a"substantial burden" under RLUIPA. Protecting agricultural and open space lands through a comprehensive plan is a compelling governmental interest.
State of California v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008) After the EPA Administrator denied California's request for a waiver from the Clean Air Act so that it could establish its own more stringent mobile source greenhouse gas emissions standards, APA filed an amicus brief with other groups in support of California. APA argues that in order to preserve the vibrant federal system required by the Constitution, the Supreme Court applies a presumption against preemption.
Naser Jewelers, Inc. v. City of Concord (2007) First Circuit Court of Appeals City of Concord's facially neutral ban on electronic message centers is challenged as a content-based restriction on speech. APA argues there is no basis under existing First Amendment jurisprudence to contend that the city's ban is a content-based regulation. Appellant seeks an end-run around the city's core legislative and planning powers. Court: Ban is content-neutral.
Wisconsin Realtors Association, Inc. v. Town of West Point (2007) Town of West Point's temporary moratorium is challenged; APA explains that moratoria are an essential planning tool for protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Local governments have broad authority under Wis. Stat. § 236.45 to enact temporary moratoria ordinances to help achieve the purposes of that statute. Court: Ban is upheld
Bechen v. Moody County Board of Commissioners (2004) Supreme Court of South Dakota The Moody County conditional use permit procedure for Confined Animal Feeding Operations is an administrative decision. APA explains that the reserved power of the people to review and overturn government decisions through referenda is limited to legislative decisions that establish a plan or policy, and does not extend to administrative decisions that implement or execute the legislative action. Court: Decisions of a county board of adjustment cannot be referred to a public vote. Affirmed.
City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, LLC Under city’s “adult business license” ordinance, the city’s decision to deny a license may be appealed to the state district court pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. APA: Challenges to such licensing schemes should be properly analyzed as time, place, and manner regulations rather than as a prior restraint. SCOTUS: The ordinance meets the First Amendment’s requirement that such a licensing scheme assure prompt judicial review of an administrative decision denying a license
Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima County (2002) APA argues that a state regulatory takings law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-829(G)) threatens to undermine the 80-year foundation of comprehensive zoning and planning, making it difficult, if not impossible, to uniformly apply land-use regulations to properties similarly situated within its jurisdiction.
San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill (2002) Property owner claims a constitutional and statutory right to convert a dormant hospital property to a "religious college" campus. APA argues that the district court correctly applied rational basis scrutiny under the free exercise clause to the city's neutral and generally applicable zoning regulation.
League of Oregon Cities v. State of Oregon (2002) APA urges the Oregon Supreme Court to set aside Measure 7, a regulatory takings provision, because it failed to meet the constitutional standards for the presentation of proposed amendments. Measure 7 upsets fundamental understandings of those involved in land use management, giving priority to the right of the individual to develop land, at the expense of the wider community that may be harmed by that development.
Kaiser Aetna, et al. v. united States (1979) In this US Supreme Court decision, the Court found that the government had gone too far and it constituted a taking. The court held that the government was physically invading a privately-owned marina by its action and as a result it must pay compensation.
Created by: Mibla001
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