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
Court Cases
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What was the legal ruling in the 1978 Penn Central case? | Sign regulations that placed tighter restrictions on non-commercial signage than commercial signage constituted a taking. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1984 Taxpayers for Vincent Case? | Ban on signs within a public right-of-way not a violation of free speech. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 2000 City of Erie case? | Regulations requiring exotic dancers to wear minimal clothing not a violation of the 1st Amendment. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 2002 case of Alameda Books? | Prohibition against a concentration of adult businesses doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1986 City of Renton case? | Regulations limiting adult uses by time, place, etc are ok so long as the adult uses are reasonably accommodated somewhere in the community. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1976 Young case? | Regulations requiring separation of adult establishments from other uses not unconstitutional. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1992 Lucas case? | Coastal setback prohibiting all practical uses amounts to a taking. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1987 Keystone Coal case? | Use of the whole parcel in considering a takings claim, in this case, surface damage by coal mining. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1909 Welsh case? | Height limitations upheld under due process. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1915 Hadacheck case? | Prohibition on certain industrial uses is not a violation of due process. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 2005 Kelo case? | Economic development project in absence of blight can be public use for purpose of eminent domain. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1984 Midkiff case? | Hawaiian land reform legislation involved an adequate public use. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1954 Berman case? | Urban redevelopment is a public use for purposes of eminent domain. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1995 City of Edmonds case? | Zoning restrictions on unrelated persons living together subject to Fair Housing Act. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1977 Moore case? | A limit on related persons living together as a unit is unconstitutional. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1974 City of Belle Terre case? | Limiting the number of unrelated people living together is not unconstitutional. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1978 Palazzolo case? | A takings claim is not irrelevant simply because a new owner acquired the property after the regulations went into effect. |
| What was the legal ruling in the Arlington Heights case from 1978? | Refusal to rezone to accommodate low-income housing is not a violation of equal protection clause despite a disproportionate effect. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1983 Mt. Laurel II case? | Obligation to accommodate all housing levels doesn't apply to just "developing" communities, but also to those classified as growth areas. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1975 Mt Laurel I case? | Equal Protection is violated if "developing" community fails to accommodate a "fair share" of housing for low income. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1978 Penn Central case? | NYC landmark preservation laws upheld as applied to Grand Central Terminal where owner could transfer development rights. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1976 Petaluma case? | Due Process - system establishing annual building permit cap upheld. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1985 Cleburne case? | Violation of equal protection when group homes require Special Use permits & other similar uses do not. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 2000 Olech case? | Equal protection is violated if government treats individual differently from others similarly situated and no rational basis for it exists. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 2002 Tahoe-Sierra case? | Destroying a habitat can be a violation of the Endangered Species Act. |
| What was the other legal ruling in the 2002 Tahoe-Sierra case? | A moratorium on development is not a taking per se. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1987 First English case? | Constitution compels payment of temporary damages if a "taking" is found to exist. |
| What was the subject of the 1987 First English case? | Development Moratorium |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1987 Nollan case? | Takings - development condition must be sufficiently related to program purpose. |
| What was the legal ruling in the 1997 City of Boerne case? | Ruled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as unconstitutional. |
| What was the subject matter of the 1997 City of Boerne case? | Churches |
| What was the legal ruling in the 2005 Lingle case? | The inapplicability of the "substantially advances" test. |
| What was the subject of the 2005 Lingle case? | Commercial Rent Control |
| What was the situation behind Young v. American Mini Theatres? | Required spacing of adult theaters |
| What was the result of Young v. American Mini Theatres? | Speech in adult establishments is of "lower value" and can be limited in placement in the pursuit of the quality of life. |
| What was the situation behind Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego? | Ban on billboards |
| What was the result of Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego? | City may totally ban billboards to communicate if it can show it directly furthers a government interest. |
| What was the situation behind Berman v. Parker? | Department Store in DC to be taken via eminent domain to redevelop the blighted area. |
| What were the court's comments in Berman v. Parker? | 1) aesthetics are a legitimate public purpose; 2) "public use" doesn't mean that condemned land had to remain in government ownership |
| What was the situation behind the City of LA v. Taxpayers of Vincent? | Ban on placement of political signs in public right-of-way |
| What were the circumstances in Dolan v. City of Tigard? | Expansion of a plumbing business required to dedicate land for greenway and bike path. |
| What were the court's comments in Dolan v. City of Tigard? | There must be a "rough proportionality" in requiring dedication of land to get a permit. |
| What was the situation behind Agins v. City of Tiburon? | the City abandoned a move for eminent domain and instead changed the zoning to limit development at its discretion |
| What were the court's comments in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission? | An "essential nexus" exists between a legitimate state interest & a permit condition. |
| What was the situation behind Nectow v. City of Cambridge? | The denial of application of a permit and loss of sale due to residential zoning. |
| What were the court's comments in Nectow v. City of Cambridge? | Zoning of land to R-3 was unconstitutional because it had no relation to public safety & welfare. |
| What was the situation behind in First English Evangelical Church v. County of LA? | Prohibition of building in floodplain due to the flood of building & playground. |
| What were the court's comments in Euclid v. Ambler? | Zoning is a form of nuisance control & a reasonable measure of police power. |
| What was Munn v. Illinois concerned with? | Chicago law establishing maximum rates for grain storage facilities. |
| What were the court's comments in Munn v. Illinois? | State has a legitimate police power to regulate private business that can adversely effect the public interest. |
| What was the main idea confirmed in Eubank v. City of Richmond? | The state's authority to establish a building line and require compliance with it. |
| What was the main idea confirmed in Cusak v. City of Chicago? | A law limiting billboards in mostly-residential areas is not a violation of due process. |
| What was the ruling in Construction Industry Association v. Petaluma? | Communities can limit the number of building permits per year if reasonable. |
| What was the ruling in NAACP v. Mount Laurel? | Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of growth. |
| What happened in Pumpelly v. Green Bay? | A taking occurred when state dam funded private property |
| What happened in Gettysburg Electric Railway Co v. US? | Court ruled that acquisition of national battlefield at Gettysburg served a public purpose |
| What occurred in Austin v. Older? | Permit denial on property that had been a gas station but was later zoned residential was upheld. |
| The Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill case did what? | Created the modern Endangered Species Act |
| Fasano v. Board of Commissioners of Washington County led to what? | it required zoning to be consistent with Comprehensive Plans, and recognized that rezonings may be quasi-judicial |
| The results of Just v. Marinette County were what? | A landowner has no right to change the essential natural character of land to use for a purpose for which it was unsuited in natural state and is harmful. |
| Overton Park v. Volpe did what? | Established the "hard look" doctrine for environmental impact review. |
| What did Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope do? | legitimized the Planned Unit Development process |
| What was the ruling in the 1963 People v. Stover case? | Ordinances enacted for aesthetic reasons were permissible. |
| What was the ruling in the 1982 Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan? | A state law requiring property owners to permit installation of cable facilities on their property does constitute a taking. |
| What was the ruling in the 1994 Ladue v. Gilleo case? | A city cannot ban someone from posting a noncommercial window sign at their place of residence. |
Created by:
planning_guru
Popular Standardized Tests sets