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
AICP
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (I) | Court held that the zoning ordinance, which effectively deprived adequate housing for the poor and discriminated against them, was unconstitutional and invalid |
| Agins v. City of Tiburon | Application of general zoning law to a property effects a taking if the ordinance doesn’t substantially advance legitimate state interest or denies an owner economically viable use of their land. |
| Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc. | Special requirements applicable to adult theaters and bookstores upheld; ability to control pornography via land use. |
| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. | Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how trivial. State law that required landlords to permit installation of cable television facilities on their property constituted a taking because it was a physical invasion of permanent duration. |
| Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon | Forbids coal mining under private dwellings or streets in areas where the right to mine is reserved is unconstitutional, as a taking of property without due process. If a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking and compensation is req'd. |
| Penn Central Transportation v. City of New York | Application of landmark preservation law is not a taking; restriction of use of air space above terminal is not a taking since property can still be used for original purpose. TDR are valuable and mitigate whatever financial burden law might have imposed. |
Created by:
klsbenzel