Save
Upgrade to remove ads
Busy. Please wait.
Log in with Clever
or
show password
Forgot Password?
Don't have an account?  Sign up 
Sign up using Clever
or
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.
focusNode
Didn't know it?
click below
 
Knew it?
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
0:00
edit
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-Cases

Planning Cases

Caseyear & description
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon 1922, first decision to consider land use regulation a taking
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. 1926, US Supreme Court constitutionality of zoning
Berman v. Parker 1954, US Supreme Court upheld the right of Washington, DC Redevelopment Land Agency to condemn properties that are unsightly, but non-deteriorated, if required to achieve the objectives of the area redevelopment plan
Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo 1972, NY high court allows the use of performance criteria as a means of slowing community growth
South Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel II 1983, NJ Supreme Court ruled that all municipalities in the state must build their "fair share" of affordable housing
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles 1987, US Supreme Court finds that temporary takings require compensation
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 1987, established rational nexus, US Supreme Court finds that land use restrictions must be tied directly to a specific public purpose to be valid
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 1992, US Supreme Court limits local and state governments' ability to restrict private property w/o compensation. takings occur in 2 circumstances: permanent physical invasion of privacy" and "owner denied all economically viable use of land"
Dolan v. City of Tigard 1994, established rough proportionality, US Supreme Court
Kelo v. New London 2005, US Supreme Court allows condemnation (with just compensation) for economic development purposes (via a private to private transfer)
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas 1974, US Supreme Court upheld that a zoning ordinance could limit the number of unrelated individual living in a SF dwelling
Moore v. City of East Cleveland 1977, US Supreme Court deemed an ordinance that limited which family members could reside together to be unconstitutional
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp. 1977, court upheld a zoning ordinance that prohibited MF housing in a SF neighborhood, saying that there was not proof that "discriminator purpose was a motivating factor in the Village's decision"
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. 1985, denial of permit for group home for mentally disabled was based on irrational prejudice against them and was invalid under the Equal Protections Clause. Did not consider intellectually disabled a suspect or quasi-suspect class
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City 1978, designation as a landmark does not constitute a taking and therefore compensation is not required
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. 1986, zoning regulations that control the areas where adult movie theaters are located do not violate the first amendment
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego 1981, noncommercial advertising was regulated more stringently than commercial advertising. US Supreme Court deemed this unconstitutional
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 2002, moratorium doesn't constitute a taking
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company 1896, first significant legal case concerning historic preservation. US Supreme Court ruled that historic preservation is a valid public purpose for takings.
Presbytery of Seattle v. King County 1990, Washington Supreme Court determined that land use regulation on part of a parcel (wetland) does not constitute a taking on the entire parcel. Dismissed because a permit was not applied for and therefor all administrative remedies were not exhausted
Agins v. City of Tiburon 1980, zoning ordinance is not a regulatory taking as it substantially advanced the legitimate governmental goal of discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion of open space to urban areas
South Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel I 1975, NJ Supreme Ct held that zoning must promote general welfare and must porvide for the opportunity to accommodate affordable housing
Created by: pamqhoward
 

 



Voices

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:
Retries:
restart all cards