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
Legal Principals
Functional Plan Knowledge: Legal Principles, AICP Nov 2022 Test
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| 1st Amendment | Freedom of speech (SOBSs and signs) Freedom of religion (RLUIPA, religious facilities) Freedom of association (group homes) |
| 5th Amendment Often also a 14th Amendment Case | Requires just compensation for taking. (Applies to takings and eminent domain) |
| 14th Amendment | Due Process (takings, eminent domain and exactions). Types 1. Substantive - about validity of the rule (aesthetics) 2. Procedural - are rules applied fairly (ordinance) plus fair hearing (zoning change) 3. Equal protection (exclusionary zoning) |
| Nuisance Laws | Persons with real property are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their land and it should not be interrupted through noise, pollution or odor. Early zoning regulations focused on limited these. |
| Welch v. Swasey, 1909 | Zoning and 14th Amendment. Due Process Right to regulate building height. Limiting height to 80' to 100' is not a violation of equal protection or due clauses. |
| Eubank v City of Richmond, 1912 | Zoning Building setbacks are a valid exercise of police power. Turned down for due process bc they were against delegation of authority to citizens. |
| Hadacheck v Sebastian, 1915 | Zoning. 14th Amend Due Process The regulation for the location of land uses for the production of bricks is not a taking. |
| Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty, 1926 | Zoning. Alfred Bettman As long as community felt there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. Modern zoning is an appropriate use of police power. |
| Nectow v City of Cambridge, 1928 | Zoning and 14th Amendment Used rational basis test to rule the zoning ordinance was a violation of due process. Ordinance had no valid public use (promote health, safety or welfare of the public) |
| Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, 1972 | Growth Management. 14th Amendment Upheld system that awarded points for dev. based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. Proposal approved when points are reached, or developer provides infra |
| Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, 1975 | Growth Management Allowed quotas on the annual number of building permits issues as long as they are reasonable. |
| Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore, 1976 | Growth Management. 14th Amendment Upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits until performance conditions were met. Can allow time phasing of future residential growth until conditions are met. |
| Brandt Revocable Trust v United States, 2013 | Challenge to federal rules Court found that 1875 General Railroad ROW Act grants an easement for railroad's land. If railroad company abandons land, it should be settled as an easement, and if the easement disappears the land reverts to previous owner. |
| Massachusetts v. EPA, 2006 | Challenge to federal rules Court upheld that EPA must provide reasonable justification why it would not regulate greenhouse gases. |
| Rapanos v. United States, 2006 | Challenge to federal rules Court found that the Army Corp of Engineering must determine if there is a significant nexus (wetlands that are either alone or in combination with similarly situated wetlands) between a wetland and a navigable waterway. |
| SD Warren v. Main Board of Environmental Protection, 2006 | Challenge to federal rules 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 | Challenge to federal rules Disparate impact (an unnecessary discrimination to a protected class caused by practice or policy that appears to be nondiscriminatory) happened when project was approved in poor areas instead of Caucasian. Fair Housing Act. |
| Young v. American Mini Theaters, 1976 | 1st Amendment SOB Decentralized SOBS in Detroit without violating 1st amendment |
| Metromedia v. City of San Diego, 1981 | 1st Amendment Signs Commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently or they violate the 1st amendment. Overruled an ordinance that banned off-premises signs bc it effectively banned non-commercial signs. |
| Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 1984 | 1st Amendment Signs Court upheld ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles. Said regulation for aesthetics for signs is valid as long as content is not regulated. |
| City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 1986 | 1st Amendment SOB Upheld that zoning ordinance limiting SOBs to a single zoning district is okay if it is a substantial gvmt interest. Can place restrictions on time, place and manner as long as the business type can be located in the city. |
| Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 | 1st Amendment Congress passed this act to declare that no government may implement land use regulations that impose a "substantial burden" on religious assembly or institution unless it's a compelling gvmt interest, w the least restriction possible |
| Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona, 2014 | 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment Court ruled the city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages. Ordinance was not content neutral. |
| United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company, 1896 | 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment Court ruled that the acquisition of the national battlefield served a valid public purpose. 1st case for national preservation. |
| Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 1922 | 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment If a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. 1st taking ruling and defined a regulatory taking under the 5th Amendment. |
| Berman v. Parker, 1954 | 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment Public Use. Aesthetics and urban renewal is a valid public purpose. |
| Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York, 1976 | 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment Court invalidated the city's decision for a regulation that required placement of a public park on private property, but did not rule the taking should be required compensation. |
| Penn Central Transportation Co. V The City of New York, 1978 | 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment Takings, Equal Protection and Due Process Landmark Preservation Law to limit some air right did not constitute a taking bc there is still commercial value |
| Agins v. City of Tuburon, 1980 | 5th Amendment and 14th Amendments Court upheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and determined the constitution was not a taking. |
| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 1982 | 5th and 14th Amendment Permanent physical occupations (cable television lines on a building) that invade privacy are takings. Need a place for them to locate in the city. Was a taking that required just compensation. |
| First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 1987 | 5th and 14th Amendment Temporary Taking Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking. If a property is unusable for a period of time, an ordinance can be set aside. Ruled to purchase property or revoke ordinance and pay |
| Keystone Bituminous Coal Assoc v DeBenedictis, 1987 | 5th and 14th Amendment Takings The nature of the state's interest was a critical factor to determine that requiring 50% of subsurface materials for protected structures did not constitute a taking |
| FCC v. Florida Power Corp v. Supreme Court, 1987 | 5th and 14th Amendment Court found that no taking had occurred when the Federal Communications Commission regulated rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles. |
| Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987 | 5th and 14th Amend Takings Must be a nexus btw state's interest and exaction to require dedication of easement. Ruled California to provide just compensation to beachfront property owners for use of their land. |
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992 | 5th and 14th Amendment Takings Total reduction in value from dev regs is a taking if nexus to nuisance are not equal. App purchased 2 undeveloped parcels to construct 2 single family homes. Development denied after purchase. |
| Dolan v. Tigard, 1994 | 5th and 14th Amendment Takings Reqs a reasonable relationship btw conditions and impact through "rough proportionality" test. Exaction overturned to required dedication of property for floodplain to create a greenway and bicycle path |
| Situm v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1997 | 5th and 14th Amendment Do not have to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking of property without justification suit. |
| City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd, 1999 | 5th Amendment Court ruled developer to receive payment of $1.45M based on city's repeated denials of a development permit for a 190-unit residential complex on oceanfront property bc it was in conformance with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. |
| Palazzoo v. Rhode Island, 2001 | 5th 14th Amend Takings Court ruled that unconstitutional taking may occur if owner acquired property after land restrictions became effective. Was denied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club with existing ordinance |
| Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2002 | 5th and 14th Amendment Taking Placing moratorium on dev in the area to adopt a comprehensive land plan does not constitute a taking requiring compensation. |
| Lingle v Chevron, 2005 | 5th and 14th Amendment Takings Regulation of property affects a taking if it does not "substantially advance a legitimate state interest." Must be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed. |
| City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 2005 | 5th and 14th Amendment Court ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna could not seek damages bc it would distort the intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 |
| Kelo v. City of New London, 2005 | 5th and 14th Amendment. Public Use in Eminent Domain Court ruled that economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain. |
| Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Dept of Environmental Protectioin, 2009 | 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment Court rules that submerged lands that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation. |
| Koontz v St. John's River Water Mgmt, 2012 | 5th and 14th Amendment Court found there was not specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work and that a taking had occurred. |
| Munn v Illinois, 1876 | 14th Amendment Actions that properly protect public health, morals and safety are not a taking and do not not violate due process. State regulated pricing for grain. |
| Mugler v. Kansas, 1887 | 14th Amendment Court found that a state law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process bc it validated state and local government actions to protect health, morals safety. |
| Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas, 1974 | 14th Amendment Due Process, Equal Protection Court upheld regulation that no more than two unrelated individuals can live together as a single-family. Community has the power to control lifestyle and values, and zoning is a valid use of police power |
| Village of Arlington Heights v. Metromedia Housing Dev Corp, 1977 | 14th Amendment. Equal Protection No evidence that regs discrim based on race, immigration status or national origin when rezone app for single to multi-family was denied to build racially integrated low-income homes. Unconstitutional if discriminating |
| Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 1972 and 1975 | 14th Amendment 1. Exclusionary zoning prohibiting multi-family, mobile home or low to moderate income housing and made town accommodate a "fair share" of income in region's growth 2. affirmative measures should be used to det fair share goal is reached |
| City of Boerne v Flores, 1997 | 14th Amendment, 1st Amendment Case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Court ruled that the act to deny a church to expand was an unconstitutional exercise of power under the 14th Amendment. |
| Dillon's Rule | Applied in states where the rights of cities are only those that has been specifically authorized by the state. |
| Home Rule Cities | Cities allowed to develop their own regulations, except where the state has specifically stated otherwise. |
| Police Power | Comes from 10th Amendment where rights and powers "not delegated to the US" allows states to grant ability to regulate behavior and enforce laws that sustain the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people. Upheld in Mugler v Kansas (1987) |
| Zoning, 14th Amendment All established different ways that zoning is legal | Welch v. Swasey - bldg height Eubank v. City of Richmond - bldg setback Hadacheck v. Sebastian - land use location Euclid v. Ambler Realty - zoning is police power. Nectow v. City of Cambridge - rational basis test is req (health safety welfare) |
| Growth Management, 14th Amendment control growth by administrative process | Golden v. Ramapo, - infra point system approval Const Industry v. City of Petaluma - # of bldg permits/ year Assoc Home Builders v. City of Livermore - temporary moratorium on bldg permits until perf conditions were met |
| Challenges to Federal Acts - RR, EPA, Dept of Housing | Brandt Revocable Trust v US - 1875 Gen RR ROW Act and easements Massachusetts v EPA - greenhouse gases TX Dept of Housing v Inclusive Communities - "disparate impact" for housing |
| Challenge to Federal Water Acts | Rapanos v US - Army Corp of Engineers "significant nexus" btw wetland and navigable waterway SD Warren v Maine - dams are subject to Section 401 Clean Water Act |
| 1st Amendment Cases - Signs | Metromedia v. San Diego - comm and non-comm speech cannot be treated differently City Council v. Vincent - sign aesthetics (signs within row) is valid if content is not regulated Reed et al v. Gilbert Arizona - sign ordinance was not content neutral |
| 1st Amendment Cases - SOBs | Young v. American Mini Theatres - decentralized SOBs City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres - Limited SOBs to single zoning district is serves substantial gvmt interest |
| 1st Amendment Cases - Churches | Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) No gvmt may implement land use regs that impose a substantial burden on religious assembly or institution unless it's a compelling gvmt interest |
| 5th & 14th Amendments - Takings and Public Interest | US v. Gettysburg - national battlefield was a valid public purpose. historic preservation Keystone Coal v DeBenedictis - nature of state's regs determine if its a taking |
| 5th & 14th Amendments - Takings from Overregulating | Penn Coal v. Mahon - if reg is too far its a taking Fred French v. NY - if regs leave no income to be produced from property it's a taking 1st English Church v LA County - Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking. |
| 5th & 14th Amendments - Takings and Just Compensation | Lucas v South Carolina - total reduct of value is a taking Nollan v California - 1 "rational nexus" btw state's interest and exaction Dolan v Tigard - 1 + 2 "rough proportionality" for exactions Koontz v St. John's - 1 + 2 + 3 made up rules |
| 5th & 14th Amendments - Takings and Utilities | Loretto v Teleprompter - (cable co) phys business on bldgs are not takings FCC v Florida Power - gvmt can regulate rents charged by utilities. Not a taking Rancho v Abrams - radio op was denied permit. Could not claim damages bc 1996 Telecomm Act |
| 5th & 14th Amendments- Takings and Comprehensive Plan | City of Monterey v Del Monte - Req compensation for repeated denials bc property aligns w the city's comp plan and zoning ord Tahoe-Sierra Pres v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - moratoria on dev until Comp Plan land use was completed not a taking. |
| 5th & 14th Amendments - Takings | Suitum v Tahoe- Taking is not estab until sale of dev rights is denied Agins v Tiburon- 1 did not subst fwd state inter, 2. denied owner of econ use of land Lingle v Chevron- overturn part of Agins. Reg is a taking if it does not substant adv st inter |
| 5th & 14th Amendments - Takings and Eminent Domain | Berman v. Parker - 1. aesthetics and urban renewal is a valid public purpose Kelo v New London - 1. + 2. Economic development is a valid use of eminent domain even if taking property |
| 5th & 14th Amendments - Takings and Litorial Rights | Stop the Beach v Florida Dept of Env Protection - submerged lands filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property wo just compensation |
| 14th Amendment - No violation of due process | Munn V Illinois- reg of private prop does not violate due process when for public good Mugler v Kansas- police power: laws to protect health, morals safety Village of Belle Terre- reg to prevent more than two unrelated ppl as single-fam not a violation |
| 14th Amendment - Housing and Exclusionary Zoning | Arlington Heights v Metro - No evid of discr to deny rezone app for single- to multi- fam S Burlington v Mount Laurel - 1. Exclu zoning prohib multi-family, mobile homes, & low to mod income housing. Req"fair share" of region, 2. affirm action to measure |
| 14th Amendment - Church | Boerne v Flores - Prohibited church (1st amend) from enlarging in historic district and challenged Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Violation of due process |
| 5th and 14th Amendments - Takings and Air Rights | Penn Central v NYC - restrictions on use are legal as long as there is still some commercial value |
| Bove v Donner-Hanna Coke Corp, 1932 | Owner not permitted to make unreasonable use of premises to the material annoyance of a neighbor, if the latter's enjoyment of life or property is materially lessened |
| Calvert Cliffs v. U.S. Atomic Enegry Commission 1971 | Overturned approval of nuclear plant because the AEC did not follow NEPA; gave NEPA strength |
| Cohen v. Des Plains, 1990 | Zoning cannot be used to give churches an advantage over commercial establishments; Church could have day care but commercial entities couldn't |
| Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 1977 | Cities cannot define "family" so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other |
| Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 1997 | Regulation that leaves some economically beneficial uses may still be a taking |
| Brown v Board of Education, 1954 | Supreme Court upholds school integration |
Created by:
cristinemshoff
Popular Standardized Tests sets