Help

Options

focusNode

Didn't know it?
click below

Knew it?
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

May 2018 AICP Exam

Term	Definition
Antiquities Act of 1906	1st law to institute fed protection for preserving archaeological sites. Allowed for National Monuments designation in areas that contained "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and objects of historic or scientific interest."
Paul Davidoff	Advocacy Planning in the 1960's
Plaintiff	The person or entity that brings a lawsuit.
Defendant	The person or entity who is sued in a civil case or prosecuted in a criminal case.
Appellant	The party who loses at the trial court level and files in an appellate court to try to have the lower court's ruling overturned.
Amicus curiae	Latin for "friend of the court." It is advice formally offered to the court in a brief filed by an entity interested in, but not a party to, the case.
Brief	The written arguments submitted in a trial or appellate proceeding that presents one side's legal and factual arguments.
Common law	The legal system that originated in England and is now in use in the United States, which relies on the articulation of legal principles in a historical succession of judicial decisions. Common law principles can be changed by legislation.
Case law	Also called common law or judge-made law, case law is derived from the published body of rulings made by a country's courts
Injunction	An order from a court prohibiting a party from doing something.
De Novo Proceeding	When a court hears a case de novo, it is deciding the issues without reference to any legal conclusion or assumption made by the previous court to hear the case.
Finder of Fact:	a person, or group of persons, who determines facts in a legal proceeding, usually a trial.
AMENDMENT V	“No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
AMENDMENT I	freedom of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
ARTICLE VI	and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Equal Protection	Treating those that are similarly situated the same, or making distinctions only on legitimate grounds.Distinctions based on “fundamental right” or “protected class” status are unconstitutional unless compelling reason for differing treatment exists
Takings	Arises out of 5th and 14th Amendments to U.S. Constitution. Regulations effect a taking of property without compensation if they “go too far” Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)
Dillion’s Rule	Local gov'ts have three types of power. 1) Those expressly granted 2) Those necessarily or fairly implied 3) Those essential to the purpose of the corporation. If there is any reasonable doubt if a specific power has been granted, then it hasn't.
Home Rule	Local governments have broad authority and power related to matters of local concern.
Eubank v. City of Richmond	1912 ordinance giving one set of property owners ability to impose setbacks through petition deprives other owners of due process. Procedural Due Process and equal protection
Washington ex rel. Seattle Trust Co. v. Roberge	1928 ordinance allowing location of home for aged and poor only with consent of neighbors was unlawful delegation of authority – violates due process, Procedural Due Process
Lordship Park Ass’n v. Board of Zoning Appeals	1950 reliance on draft plan never formally adopted and lacking public review or determination of public interest in denying appeal violates due process, Procedural Due Process
Welton v. Hamilton	1931 statute giving unbridled discretion to board of appeals and lacking rules or criteria for decision- making unlawfully delegated legislative authority of City Council, procedural due process
Cusack v. City of Chicago	1917 ordinance requiring consent of homeowners for billboards in residential areas did not violate due process – protects against fires, “unsanitary accumulations,” “immoral practices,” “loiterers and criminals”, Substantive Due process
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas	1974 ordinance strictly defining “family” for purposes of restricting land uses to “single-family dwellings” did not violate due process, substantive due process
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty	1926 enforcement of a general zoning ordinance that creates various geographic districts and excludes certain uses from such districts is a valid exercise of the police power and does not violate due process or equal protection, equal protection. Zoning
Penn Central Transport. Corp. v. City of New York	1978 rejection of plans for modern office tower atop Grand Central Station not a taking because of among other things, rejection was consistent with comprehensive historic preservation plan and allowed for air rights’ transfer, takings
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles	1987 holding that monetary damages must be paid where regulation results in a taking of all use of property – but, Court remanded to lower court to make the determination of whether taking had occurred here – it had not, takings
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission	1987 established “rational nexus” test for exactions takings
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council	1992 compensation required where regulation takes all economic use of land – “Lucas-type Taking”
Dolan v. City of Tigard	1994 extends Nollan “rational nexus” test through rule of “rough proportionality” to ensure extent of exaction is proportional to project impacts
Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency	2002 Mere enactment of moratorium does not effect a taking of property. Moratorium imposed during preparation of comprehensive land-use plan is not “categorical” taking of property requiring compensation under Federal Takings Clause. takings and moratoria
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District	2013 Gov't = liable for a taking when it doesn't issue a land-use permit on the basis that the permit applicant did't accept a permit condition that if applied, would violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests set out in Nollan and Dolan
Coleman Young Mayor of Detroit v. American Mini Theaters, Inc	1976 holding that local ordinance placing distance requirements between adult theaters and other “regulated uses” or residential areas did not violate Equal Protection Clause or serve as a prior restraint on First Amendment rights of free expression
Reed v. Town of Gilbert	2015 Ordinances with different rules for signs based on topic, content, or subject matter are “content-based” regulations subject to “strict scrutiny”
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel	1972 holding that under the N.J. Constitution, a community must provide its “fair share” of low and moderate income housing - pattern and practice of township in excluding multi-family dwellings was discriminatory housing and exclusionary zoning
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro Devel. Corp	1977 Racially discriminatory intent or purpose, rather than disproportionate impact, required to prove equal protection violation in zoning action, housing and exclusionary zoning
Susette Kelo v. City of New London	City’s exercise of eminent domain to further econ dev satisfies the “public purpose” interpretation of the “public use” requirement of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment even if city does not open land for use by public. Affirms Berman v. Parker
T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia	2015 Federal Telecoms Act of 1996 requires localities to provide written notice of denial and reasons applications to build cell towers.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon	1922- Indication for the first time that regulation of land use might be a taking
Berman v Parker	1954 Established aesthetics and development as valid public purposes for exercising the power of eminent domain
Cheney v Village 2 at New Hope, Inc.	1968 Legitimized the planned unit development process.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc v. Volpe	1971 established the "hard look" doctrine for environmental impact review
Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission	1971 Made National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements judicially enforceable
Sierra Club v. Morton	Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies
Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo	172 Recognized growth phasing programs. constituted a rational attempt to provide for sequential and orderly residential development in conjunction with the needs of the community and its ability to supply public facilities
Just v. Marinette County	1972 Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme.
Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County	1973 Required zoning to be consistent with comprehensive plans and recognized that rezonings may be quasi-judicial as well as legislative.
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.,	1976 Opened up the possibility to control pornography via land use. Special requirements applicable to adult theaters and bookstores upheld.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.	1977 Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts.
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill	1978 Created modern Endangered Species Act law (protecting the snail darter). U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision held that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits the completion and operation of the Tellico Dam.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego	1981 commercial speech to aesthetic regulation. Ordinance that substantially restricted both commercial and noncommercial off-site billboards as well as noncommercial on-site billboards held unconsti tutional under the First Amendment.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp	1982 State law that required landlords to permit installation of cable television facilities on their property constituted a taking because it was a physical invasion of permanent duration.
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon	1995 Secretary of Interior's definition of "harm" to endangered species (prohibited by Endangered Species Act of 1973) is valid when defined as "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife."
1934 the National Housing Act	Established FSLIC for insuring savings deposits and the FHA for insuring individual home mortgages.

Created by: emalvar1

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries: