Case | Year and topic |
Welch swasey | 1909 building height |
Eubank v city of richmond | 1912 setbacks |
Hadacheck v sebastian | 1915 land use location regulation |
Village of Euclid v ambler realty | 1926 zoning is proper use of police power, based on nuisance |
Nectow v city of cambridge | 1928 zoning denied, requires valid public purpose e.g. health safety morals public welfare (rational basis test) |
Golden v ramapo | 1972 upheld growth mange mentioned system based on points-based evaluation of proposals (using infrastructure) |
Construction industry of Sonoma County v petaluma | 1975 upheld quotas on annual building permits |
Home builders of greater east bay v city of livermore | 1976 upheld temporary moratorium on building permits |
Brandt revocable trust v united states | 2013 railway easements revert to owner when abandoned |
Massachusetts v EPA | 2006 epa must justify why they would not regulate GHGs |
Rapanos v US | 2006 army core of engineers must determine nexus between wetland and navigable waterway |
SD Warren v Maine EPA | 2006 hydro dams are subject to clean water act |
Texas dept of housing and communityaffairs v inclusive community project | 2015 something about fair housing act, disparate impact, and inadvertent relegating minorities to poor areas |
Young v American mini theatres | 1976 upheld zoning that decentralized adult biz in detroit |
Metro media v San diego | 1981 commercial and non comm speech, can't ban, off premises signs |
City council v taxpayers for vincent | 1984 a aesthetic sign regs okay, just not content |
Renton v playtime theatres | 1986 Can't entirely restrict adult biz, but can control time place etc, and don't have to guarantee land |
Religious land use and institutionalized persons act | 2000 can't impose burden on religious assembly |
Reed v Gilbert arizona | 2014 signage for church in a school, town could not restrict |
US v Gettysburg electric railway co | 1896 acquisition of battlefield was valid public purpose, historic preservation |
Penn coal v mahon | 1922 regs went too far = taking |
Berman v parker | 1954 aesthetics is valid public purpose |
Fred french v cit of new york | 1976 denied a regular requiring a park in a development, leaving no income producing use |
Penn central v city of new york | 1978 grand central, landmark preservation law, not a taking. Taking based on diminution of value, investment backed expectations |
Agins v city of tiburon | 1980 upheld right to zone low density. Owners had 5 acres and sued for more density e.g. taking / compensation |
Loretto v teleprompter | 1982 physical occupation is a taking. Cable company installed cables to serve tenants = occupation |
Lutheran Church of Glendale v county of LA | 1987 making property unusable for a short time = taking |
Keystone bituminous coal v debenedictus | 1987 act protecting homes against subsidence, must leave 50% of coal, is not a taking |
FCC v Florida power | 1987 regulation of rent for cable use of telephone pole is not a taking. |
Nollan v California coastal commission | 1987 involved public access to beach, required exactions to be reasonably related to development |
Lucas v south Carolina coastal commission | |
| 1992 there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value. |
Dolan v tigard | 1994 must be rational nexus between exactions and development. Rough proportionality test created. |
Suitum v Tahoe rpa | 1997 owner does not need to attempt to sell in order to sue for a taking |
Monterey v del montessori dunes | 1999 city had to pay developer for denying approval for a probject that that was in compliance with comp plan and zoning |
Palazzolo v Rhode island | 2001 a claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation |
Tahoe Sierra preservation council v Tahoe rpa | 2002 development moratorium while developing a comp plan is not a taking |
Lingle v chevron | 2005 regulation is a taking if it does not substantially advance state interests |
Rancho Palos v abrams | 2005 something about telecommunications act |
Kelo v city of new london | 2005 ec development is valid use of eminent domain |
Stop the beach renourishment v Florida dept of environmental protection | 2009 submerged lands to be filled by state was not a taking from waterfront property owners |
Koontz v st johns river water mgmt | 2012 a taking for requiring mitigation work and land dedication before approving permit |
Munn v Illinois | 1876 allowed public regulation of private business in the public interest. Price regulation not a taking or violation of due process |
Belle terre v boaraas | 1974 extended the concept of zoning to include a desire for certain types of lifestyles.. reg prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together |
Village of Arlington Heights v metropolitan housing development corp | 1977 related to racially discriminationatory zoning when village denied upzoning from single to multifamily |
Southern burlington county naacp v township of mount laurel | 1975 exclusionary zoning, required town to open doors to other income levels |
City of Boerne v flores | 1997 challenged religious freedom restoration act, regarding expansion of church in texas. Court found that Act exceeded congressional powers. |