Question 1

"...where it is clear that the existing physical and financial resources of the community are inadequate
to furnish the essential services and facilities which a substantial increase in population requires, there
is a rational basis for 'phased growth,'

Accepted Answer

Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo

Question 2

Formalized the concept of a regional "fair share" affordable housing burden.

Accepted Answer

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel

Question 3

Introduced a means-end balancing test for regulatory takings and validated historic preservation
controls.

Accepted Answer

Penn Central Transportation Co v. City of New York

Question 4

the court held that the
ordinance violated First Amendment free speech protections by restricting noncommercial speech via
billboards to a similar degree as its commercial restrictions.

Accepted Answer

Metromedia Inc. v. City of San Diego

Question 5

Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning.

Accepted Answer

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel II

Question 6

Created "essential nexus" takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications and exactions. There must be a strong relationship between the problem created by proposed
development and the proposed exaction (or mitigation), or else compens

Accepted Answer

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Question 7

Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principles
of law; compensation to be paid to landowners when regulations deprive them of all economically
beneficial land use unless uses are disallowed by tit

Accepted Answer

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Question 8

Established a higher standard for takings by extending Nollan's "essential nexus" test to require "rough
proportionality" between development impact and conditions.

Accepted Answer

Dolan v. City of Tigard

Question 9

The Court held that the moratoria did not constitute a taking. Recognizes that partial, temporary deprivations of property may constitute a taking under the Fifth
Amendment, but must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis under the regulatory taking framewo

Accepted Answer

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Question 10

The court overruled Agins's "substantially advances a legitimate state interest" test to determine
whether there has been a regulatory taking. The Court clarified that such a test is more appropriate in
due process challenges. Instead, regulatory taking

Accepted Answer

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.

Question 11

Because that plan unquestionably serves a public
purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment." Upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

Accepted Answer

Kelo v. City of New London

Question 12

Recognized that subject matter distinctions are facially content-based and subject to strict scrutiny,
and clarified the relevance of governmental purpose in enacting the challenged law.

Accepted Answer

Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Question 13

For a zoning ordinance to be declared unconstitutional, it must be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable,
having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Established zoning as a legitimate use of police power

Accepted Answer

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty

Question 14

"The general rule at least is, that
while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a
taking."

Accepted Answer

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon

Description	Case	Date
"...where it is clear that the existing physical and financial resources of the community are inadequate to furnish the essential services and facilities which a substantial increase in population requires, there is a rational basis for 'phased growth,'	Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo	1972
Formalized the concept of a regional "fair share" affordable housing burden.	Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel	1975
Introduced a means-end balancing test for regulatory takings and validated historic preservation controls.	Penn Central Transportation Co v. City of New York	1978
the court held that the ordinance violated First Amendment free speech protections by restricting noncommercial speech via billboards to a similar degree as its commercial restrictions.	Metromedia Inc. v. City of San Diego	1981
Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning.	Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel II	1983
Created "essential nexus" takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications and exactions. There must be a strong relationship between the problem created by proposed development and the proposed exaction (or mitigation), or else compens	Nollan v. California Coastal Commission	1987
Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principles of law; compensation to be paid to landowners when regulations deprive them of all economically beneficial land use unless uses are disallowed by tit	Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council	1992
Established a higher standard for takings by extending Nollan's "essential nexus" test to require "rough proportionality" between development impact and conditions.	Dolan v. City of Tigard	1994
The Court held that the moratoria did not constitute a taking. Recognizes that partial, temporary deprivations of property may constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, but must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis under the regulatory taking framewo	Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency	2002
The court overruled Agins's "substantially advances a legitimate state interest" test to determine whether there has been a regulatory taking. The Court clarified that such a test is more appropriate in due process challenges. Instead, regulatory taking	Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.	2005
Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment." Upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.	Kelo v. City of New London	2005
Recognized that subject matter distinctions are facially content-based and subject to strict scrutiny, and clarified the relevance of governmental purpose in enacting the challenged law.	Reed v. Town of Gilbert	2015
For a zoning ordinance to be declared unconstitutional, it must be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Established zoning as a legitimate use of police power	Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty	1922
"The general rule at least is, that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking."	Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon	1926

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:

2026 AICP Legal Case