click below
click below
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. |