Help

Options

focusNode

Didn't know it?
click below

Knew it?
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

AICP-Law

Question	Answer
Berman versus Parker (1954)	Berman versus Parker (1954) The power to determine what values to consider in seizing property for public welfare is Congress' alone. "If ...the Nation's Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth that stands in the way." aesthetics -urban renewal
Eminent Domain	Eminent Domain Local government power to force someone to sell her property. It is constitutional.
taking clause	taking clause The taking clause has two parts: “for public use, without just compensation.” Just compensation= fair payment (real estate professionals)
Public use term	Public use term has got a lot of nuance. It can include: breaking up a land oligopoly, economic development, agriculture and mining, common carriers (there is public benefit), used by the public. The court has introduced another term: Public Purpose
Kelo v. the city of New London (2005)	Q: Does a city violate the Fifth if it takes private property and sells it for private development, for economic development? No, following an economic development plan. economic development is a valid use of eminent domain
Regulatory taking	Regulatory takings occurs when a property owner is so burdened by regulation that he or she cannot still be said to own his/her property, instead the government owns it.
inverse condemnation	Regulatory taking= inverse condemnation
How Eminent domain and regulatory takings are different ?	Eminent domain and regulatory takings are different in three ways. In eminent domain government pays the owner, with eminent domain government takes ownership of the property, and eminent domain is constitutional.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)	(a famous case on regulatory taking). Q: Did the Kohler Act restrict coal mining to an extent that violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by depriving mine owners of coal without compensation? Yes
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978)	The case relates to the application of NY historic preservation ordinance. Q: Did the restriction against Penn Central constitute a "taking" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? No.
Certificate of appropriateness	to make sure that historic features will not be destroyed.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Mahattan CATV Corp (1982)	“A permanent physical occupation... is a taking without regard to the public interests that it may serve.” “…The right to exclude others is one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.”
Bright-line Regulatory Takings Rules	1) if the government regulates away a property owner’s right to exclude, the government has committed a regulatory taking. 2) A regulatory taking occurs when a regulation destroys all value in property.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)	Exaction- Q: Does the construction ban depriving Lucas of all economically viable use of his property amount to a "taking" calling for "just compensation" under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictus (1987)	Q: Does a state violate the Takings Clause by forcing coal mining companies to keep certain amounts of coal in underground mines in order to support structures on the surface? No- police power- some state interest are more legitimate than others.
Different kinds of Severance?	• Horizontal Severance • Vertical Severance • Functional Severance • Temporal Severance
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of LA (1987)	Q: Did the ordinance violate the 5th (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth) which prevents government from taking private property for public use without providing just compensation to the owner of the property? Yes, “temporary takings "
Exactions	Exaction is kind of a permit condition that almost certainly would be a taking if the local government demanded it of a property owner outside of issuing a permit.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)	Exaction- Q: Did the requirement constitute a property taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Yes- Essential Nexus is needed.
Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)	Exaction- A two-prong test was applied: Is there an "essential nexus" , and whether or not the degree of the exactions required by the permit condition bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development.
Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County	” Ordinances laying down general policies without regard to a specific piece of property are an exercise of legislative authority… whether the permissible use of a specific piece of property should be changed is usually an exercise of judicial authority…”
The Fairly Debatable Standard	applicable to legislative decision making
Model acts during Calvin Coolidge administration that promoted local government land development ordinances	Two model acts: A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (SZEA), Standard City Planning Enabling Act. First Master Plan, and then adopting regulation.
For an ordinance to be constitutional	1) it must bear a substantial relation to the public health safety, morals or general welfare, 2) it must not be clearly arbitrary.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co (1926)	Q: Did the village of Euclid's zoning ordinance violate Ambler Realty's rights to liberty and property under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment? No- modern zoning as a proper use of police power.
What level of government has Police Powers?	States, Local governments maybe- home rule
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (1974)	Q: Does an ordinance restricting land use to “one-family” dwellings violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? No, the ordinance was not arbitrary - a community has the power to control lifestyle and values.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)	zoning case- Missing ingredient: reason of the ordinance- The Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public).
Board of County Commissioners v. Snyder (FL Supreme Court)	Strict scrutiny standard: the decision of the local government will be upheld only if substantial competent evidence shows the decision is consistent with existing general rule or policy.
Procedural Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Hearings	Parties at the hearing are entitled 1) to an opportunity to be heard 2) to present and rebut evidence, 3) to a tribunal which is impartial in the matter, 4) to a record made and adequate findings executed.
Special Exceptions	The permit uses and development allowed in comprehensive plan.
Ames v. Town of Painter	court rejected special use permit because fairly debatable standard cannot be established by a silent record
To use a Variances?	1) hardship (No reasonable return if used as zoned, hardship is not self-created) 2) unique circumstances peculiar to the property, not from the neighborhood, 3) the use or development cannot alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
kinds of Variance?	• Use variance : use forbidden by law • Area variance: exception from dimensional requirements
Richard Roeser Professional Builder, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County (2002)	In zoning, it is the property that is regulated, not the title.
Spot Zoning	is the application of zoning to a specific parcel or parcels of land within a larger zoned area when the rezoning is usually at odds with a city's master plan and current zoning restrictions.
Kuehne v. Town Council of East Hartford (1950)	Owner of food stand in residential area wanted to build retail business strip on site. Town granted rezone. Court determined it to be spot zoning. The town action was not in accordance with a comprehensive plan and therefore cannot be sustained.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)	a landmark ruling that made government agency decisions subject to judicial review, and also spurred the creation of large numbers of citizens groups dedicated to environmental activism. 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966
Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)	The Court rejected a lawsuit by the Sierra Club seeking to block the development of a ski resort at Mineral King valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains because the club had not alleged any injury.
Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)	Does a moratorium on development imposed during the process of devising a comprehensive land-use plan constitutes a per se taking of property requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause? No!
First Amendment?	Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association. Within this framework, freedom of speech applies to adult uses and signs. Freedom of religion applies to religious facilities. Freedom of association applies to group homes.
different types of due process according to the 14th amendment?	Due process can be applied to takings, eminent domain, and exactions. Substantive due process beyond the applications for due process includes aesthetics. Procedural due process applies to ordinances. Equal protection is applied to exclusionary zoning.
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988	prohibited zoning regulations of community residences that are based on unfounded myths and fears about the residents, and appeared to explicitly disallow the use of special use permits as the primary means of regulating community residences.
Village of Belle Terre v. Borass (1973)	Q: Does an ordinance restricting land use to “one-family” dwellings violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Common techniques to block most community residences from locating in the residential areas?	Exclusionary zoning- special use permit
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)	Q: Did the denial of the permit violate the Equal Protection rights of Cleburne Living Center, Inc. and its potential residents? was premised on an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded, and hence unconstitutional
The intention of FHAA	To prohibit the application of special requirements through landuse regulations, restrictive covenants, and conditional or special use permits that have the effect of limiting the ability of such individuals to live in the residence in the community.
capless communities in relation to FHAA	when a jurisdictions definition of family does not cap or limit the number of unrelated individuals who may occupy a dwelling unit the FHAA prohibits imposing additional zoning requirements on community residences for people with disabilities.
Under which conditions zoning restrictions on community residences can be legal?	1) intended to achieve a legitimate government purpose. 2) actually achieve that legitimate government purpose. 3)the proposed zoning restriction the least drastic means necessary to achieve that legitimate government purpose.
Bangerter v. Orem City Corporation (1995)	Restrictions that are narrowly tailored to the particular individuals affected could be acceptable under the FHAA if the benefits to the handicapped in their housing opportunities clearly outweigh whatever burden may result to them.
When is there a taking?	"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.'"
What are the rules that the Supreme Court has established to identify situations that amount to a taking ?	1) landowner denied of "all economically viable use" of the land; 2)the regulation forced the landowner to allow someone else to enter onto the property3) burdens or costs on the landowner without "reasonable relationship" 4) less intrusive regulation
What is the one clear rule that defines situations that is not taking?	The court has held that regulations simply intended to prevent or eliminate a nuisance cannot be considered a taking.
What is police power?	As generally interpreted in the U.S., the police power is the right of government to interfere with private activity (or the use of private property) for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.
What is the most common use of the police power in planning?	Zoning . although related subdivsion regulations and building codes are also important exercises of the police power.
What is the relationship between police power and regulatory "takings" law?	They are complementary bodies of law that have evolved together. The "takings" decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court simply set limits on the extent of police power regulation.
Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909)	zoning case- The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height.
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912)	zoning case- The Court first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915)	zoning case- The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses.
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972)	Upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. A proposal would only be approved upon reaching a certain point level.
which case permits the Town of Ramapo to amend its Zoning Ordinance to insure phased growth?	Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972)
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975)	Growth management case- The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued. "to protect its small town character and open spaces, it shall be the policy of the City to control its future rate and distribution of growth . . ."
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976)	Growth management case- The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013)	The Court found that the 1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement for the railroad’s land. When the railroad company abandons land, it should be settled as an easement and if the easement is abandoned, the easement disappears and the land
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)	The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate greenhouse gases.
Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)	Does "waters of the United States" in the CWA include a wetland that empties into a tributary of a traditionally navigable water? the Army Corp of Engineers must determine there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)	The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Clean Water Act.	As amended in 1972, the law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The 1972 amendments: Established the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States.
Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act	provides states with the authority to ensure that federal agencies will not issue permits or licenses that violate the water quality standards, through a process known as water quality certification.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.; US Supreme Court (2015)	The Court held that Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act. The result is that policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violates the Fair Housing Act.
the constitution allows for police power under which amendment?	In the United States, the constitution allows for police power under the 10th amendment
Mugler v. Kansas (1887)	Fourteenth Amendment---A Kansas law prohibited the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor. Mugler was arrested for making and selling beer- Here the state legislature may exercise its police powers.
Which case first upheld the constitutionality of police power?	Mugler v. Kansas (1887)
Dillon’s Rule	applies in state’s where the rights of cities are only those that have been specifically authorized by the state. Thirty-nine states employ Dillon’s rule to all municipalities, while eight states employ this for certain types of municipalities.
Home Rule states	Home Rule states are those in which cities have the right to develop their own regulations, except where the state has specifically stated otherwise.
Limitations on county's powers	its powers must not violate any constitutional principles. These principles include, but are not limited to, due process and equal protection. the county’s powers are limited by the rule of statutory construction known as the Dillon Rule.
What are the duties of the board of zoning appeals (“BZA”)?	1) Appeals of decisions by the zoning administrator or an administrative officers 2) Variances, 3) Special use permits, 4) Interpretations the district map. The BZA does not have the power to rezone property
The subdivision agent; the site plan agent	A locality may designate an agent to review and act on subdivision plats and site plans. The agent acts in lieu of the locality’s planning commission on these matters.
Gorieb v Fox (1926)	zoning ordinance affirmed. the city has the authority to place structures away from crowed streets and maintain a safe, healthful environment.
Euclidean zoning	In 1926, the United States Supreme Court validated the zoning ordinance adopted by the Village of Euclid, a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio. The term often used today to describe conventional zoning schemes – Euclidean zoning – takes its name from this case.
Which landmark case identified the standard of review under which local zoning ordinances should be considered to determine their validity?	Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1926)
under what circumstance the zoning ordinance can be upheld in court?	If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control.
What is fairly debatable standard?
Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim (1981)	Case striking down a municipal ordinance prohibiting nude dancing, that "entertainment, as well as political and ideological speech, is protected; live entertainment, such as musical and dramatic works fall within the First Amendment guarantee."
Criticism of Euclidean zoning	it separates land uses, decreases densities, and increases the amount of land devoted to car travel, “prohibiting the kind of urbanism that typifies our most beloved urban places.” in sum: spatial separation of land use and lack of mobility
The shortcomings of conventional zoning have given rise what movement?	New Urbanism- Form-based codes based on New Urbanism principles focus on the configuration and architectural quality of urban and suburban environments.
Traditional Zoning Can’t Meet the Challenge of Modern Development	Roger K. Lewis (2004)
How New Urbanism is supposed to address problems of conventional zoning?	“Remedies for the problem of spatial separation include mixing land uses and creating diverse environments similar to traditional, older cities. Possible solutions for the lack of mobility include compact development and the promotion of public transit.”
New Urbanism and Smart Growth: Making the Good Easy: The Smart Code Alternative	Andres Duany & Emily Talen (2002)
The purpose of zoning	“to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, to protect and conserve the value of buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land.”
The exercise of the zoning power is legislative in nature	zoning text amendments, zoning map amendments, special use permits, and certificates of appropriateness issued by the governing body are legislative acts. legislative acts are presumed to be reasonable and valid.
Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard County (1997)	(upholding the county’s denial of a permit to allow the expansion of a nursing home).
The extent of the zoning power over uses, structures and areas of use	It authorizes a locality to regulate, restrict, permit, prohibit, and determine the following: Uses- Physical characteristics of structures- Areas of use- Excavation
examples of key elements that may be included in a zoning ordinance	Water protection- Variances- Special use permits- Modifications- Administering and enforcing the zoning ordinance, and appointing a zoning administrator- Fees- Amending or repealing zoning text and maps- Preservation of historical sites ...
Overlay districts	zoning ordinance may provide for overlay districts. An overlay district is a zoning district in which the requirements of the overlay district must be complied with, as well as the requirements of the underlying “base” zoning district
four common elements of an overlay district	(1) it affects lands with common characteristics for which regulation beyond underlying zoning district is desired; (2) Long study (3) additional requirements (4) involve amendments to the ordinance text and/or the zoning map.
Statutory limitations on the zoning power	The Dillon Rule- the United States and States Constitutions and preemptive federal and state laws impose limitations on a locality’s zoning power.
Uses that must be allowed by right; special use permit prohibited	provided that the use or structure meets the statutory requirements for eligibility. Some of these classes of protected uses are designed to further broad public policies, policies against discrimination in housing. or to promote a particular industry .
Constitutional principles that may be affected by local land use regulations	Procedural due process- Substantive due process- Equal protection- Just compensation or takings- Establishment of religion- Free exercise of religion- Free speech- Search and seizure -Supremacy (preemption)
The due process clause in the context of a zoning ordinance	The due process clause ensures fairness in the way in which a zoning regulation is adopted or a zoning decision is made (procedural due process), and fairness in the scope and implementation of the zoning regulation (substantive due process).
Procedural due process	Procedural due process is a constitutional right which applies to individuals in adjudicative or quasi-judicial proceedings. Procedural due process does not apply to legislative matters.
Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head (2013)	(1) the town’s actions were all legitimate governmental actions intended to enforce the public nuisance ordinance and these types of regulatory actions
Substantive due process	Land use regulations and actions must substantially advance legitimate governmental interests. Substantive due process does not forbid reasonable regulation of the use of property. It requires zoning not arbitrarily or deprive a person of property.
Lingle v. Chevron (2005)	Hawaii oil company case- Does a regulation amount to an unconstitutional taking "if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests?" No- The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent
Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980)	A general zoning law can be a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest or denies an owner economically viable use of his land. upheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and zoning was not a taking.
What is Variance?	By statute, a variance is a “reasonable deviation from” certain provisions of a locality’s zoning ordinance. A variance “allows a property owner to do what is otherwise not allowed under the ordinance.”
special use permits	a locality desiring to allow for flexibility in its zoning regulations, or in how they are administered, may do so by expanding the use of special use permits.
The nature of variances	Because a facially valid zoning ordinance may be unconstitutional to a particular property. A deviation from certain zoning requirements for special characteristics of a property
subdivision	means the division of a parcel of land into three or more lots of less than five acres each for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development, or, if a new street is involved in the division, any division of a parcel of land.
Subdivision regulations	subdivision regulations identify the procedures for dividing land and impose requirements for providing public infrastructure and other improvements when the land is developed. Thus, subdivision regulations are different from zoning regulations
Within the local sphere, there are four categories in which the state allows discretionary authority:	Structural - Functional - Fiscal - Personnel Functional powers are the most frequently used and expanded.
Thomas Cooley	Dillon's Rule was challenged by Judge Thomas Cooley of the Michigan Supreme Court in 1871, with the ruling that municipalities possess some inherent rights of local self-government. the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Dillon's Rule in 1903 and again in 1923.
if there is a reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred to a local government	Dillon's Rule states that if there is a reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred to a local government, then the power has not been conferred.
Florida home rule?	The only exception to the exclusive selection of home rule or Dillon's rule is the state of Florida, which employs home rule but reserves taxing authority for the state.
how the 1st amendment might apply to planning cases	adult entertainment and signage- religion- and association (group homes)
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc; US Supreme Court (1976)	1st and 14th. Detroit's ordinances were reasonable, and although erotic material could not be completely suppressed, Detroit had adequate reasons to restrict the distribution of such material.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc. US Supreme Court (1986)	1st and 14th- The Court found that the ordinance was designed to serve a substantial governmental interest in preserving the quality of life
Metromedia, Inc v. City of San Diego US Supreme Court (1981)	Does a city ban on "offsite" outdoor advertising signs violate First and Fourteenth Amendment provisions for free speech? cities could regulate billboards and could not treat commercial outdoor advertising more harshly than noncommercial messages
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent US Supreme Court (1984)	The Constitutionality of Prohibiting Temporary Sign Posting on Public Property to Advance Local Aesthetic Concerns
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; US Supreme Court (1896)	US Supreme Court ruling that the railway could be seized for historic preservation
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis; US Supreme Court (1987)	Does a state violate the Takings Clause by forcing coal mining companies to keep certain amounts of coal in underground mines in order to support structures on the surface?
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; US Supreme Court (2002)	Does a moratorium on development imposed during the process of devising a comprehensive land-use plan constitutes a per se taking of property requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause? no categorical taking had occurred.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; US Supreme Court (1997)	Must property owners attempt to sell their developmental rights before claiming the regulatory taking of property without just compensation, in accordance with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? No
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court (1977)	14th amendment- Was Arlington Height's denial of a zoning request, necessary for the creation of low-and moderate-income housing, racially discriminatory in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Perhaps
Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court (1974)	Does an ordinance restricting land use to “one-family” dwellings violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? did not involve a procedural disparity, did not deprive any group of a fundamental right
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975)	Exclusionary zoning practice- refused to modified the zoning and open the community to all income levels and their fair share of affordable housing
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1983)	A municipality must by its land use regulations corporate variety and choice of housing which means general welfare and not the benefit of the local tax rate.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000	prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please and gives churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on their property use.
Boerne v. Flores (1997)	Did Congress exceed its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers by enacting the RFRA which, in part, subjected local ordinances to federal regulation? Yes
1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)	"ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected." RFRA was held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997, the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's power.
certiorari meaning?	a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court.
Which cases challenged Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA)	Urban Believers v. the City of Chicago (2003) - Cutter v. Wilkinson, U.S. Supreme Court (2005)
Urban Believers v. the City of Chicago (2003)	challenge to Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000- permitted churches as of right in all residential zones but required special use permits in commercial and business zones. legitimate government purpose- neutral applicable law
Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)	challenge to Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000- Did a federal law prohibiting government from burdening prisoners' religious exercise violate the First Amendment's establishment clause? No
Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014)	Does an ordinance restricting the size, number, duration, and location of temporary directional signs violate the First or the 14 ? Yes- The city cannot impose more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on other signs.
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York; New York Court of Appeals (1976)	the city had put in place a regulation that required the placement of a public park on private property, leaving no income producing use of the property. The Court invalidated the regulation, was not ruled as a taking that should receive compensation.
facially unconstitutional meaning?	a facial challenge is a challenge to a statute in which the plaintiff alleges that the legislation is always unconstitutional, and therefore void. contrasted with an as-applied challenge= a particular application of a statute is unconstitutional.
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)	The public utilities challenged a federal statute that authorized the Federal Communications Commission to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles. The Court found that a taking had not occurred.
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; U.S. Supreme Court (1999)	5th- The development was in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001)	Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments- The Supreme Court found that claims are ripe for adjudication--most importantly, acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims. The case was remanded.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)	5th- The Court ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied conditional use permit for an antenna cannot seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)	The Supreme Court ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state did not represent a taking to the waterfront property owners.
Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management (2012)	5th- is government liable for a taking when it denies a permit until the land owner has agreed to dedicate land for a public use? Yes, noting that there was no specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work - taking had occurred.
Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court (1876)	14th- A state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest.
littoral rights	In United States law, Littoral rights are rights concerning properties that abut an ocean, bay, delta, sea or lake, rather than a river or stream (riparian). Littoral rights are usually concerned with the use and enjoyment of the shore.
RTM Media v City of Houston (US Court of Appeals) (2009)	billboard ordinance- sign code- first amendment- city zoning code and sign regulations- court agreed with the city- the first case distinguish between commercial and non commercial speech-
Midwest Media v City of Erlanger and City of Ft. Wright (US Court of Appeals) (2009)	size and height of the signs- purpose of the ordinance in the text.
Rocky Mountain Christian Church v Board of County Commissioners (US Court of Appeals) (2010)	the church was denied expansion permit- the plaintiff: it was in violation of RLUIPA (2000)- they said yes to a school- the church won- should not treat religious land uses differently
Kyser v Kasson Townships (Michigan Supreme Court) (2010)	if there are natural resources on the property - Court overturned the antiquated Silva rule and decided that the "no very serious consequences" rule, applied in zoning decisions for mining is unconstitutional. "reasonableness" standard
Guggenheim v City of Goleta (US Court of Appeals (2010)	the facial challenge to the city's rent control ordinance failed- “got exactly what they bargained for when they purchased the Park – a mobile-home park subject to” rent control.
Continental Property Group v City of Minneapolis (2010)	The Court again granted certiorari on the question of whether disparate impact may be a violation of the Fair Housing Act. APA argued that the disparate impact presents no obstacle to local planning, improve the planning process, fosters trust in local of
West Linn Corporate Park v City of West Linn (US Court of Appeals) (2011)	alleged inverse condemnation and taking- the city put a condition that need upgrade the infrastructure- Be clear about what site improvements are required. requiring off site improvements does not constitute a taking.
Magner v Gallagher (2011)	The respondents sought to prevent the aggressive selective enforcement of the City's housing code by asserting a disparate impact claim under the Fair Housing Act.- Are disparate impact claims permitted under the Fair Housing Act? Unanswered
To ensure a constitutionally valid ordinance about sign which items should be considered?	Aesthetics - Traffic Safety
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985)	Is a property owner entitled to money damages for the time during which zoning laws affect a temporary taking of the property? No
Federal Navigation Act of 1936	This act required that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers undertake waterway system projects when the total benefits exceed the costs of the project. let to popularity of Cost-benefit analysis in the U.S.

Created by: dwoods9

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries: