AICP Law Questions
Help!
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The USSC established the right of municipalities to regulate building height. What case is this/year? | show 🗑
|
||||
| The USSC first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case. What case/year? | show 🗑
|
||||
| The USSC first approved the regulation of the location of land uses. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Village of Euclid, OH Ambler Realty Co., 1926
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC 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, & welfare of the public). | show 🗑
|
||||
| The court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited MF, mobile home, or low-to-moderate income housing. The court req'd the Town to open its doors to those of all income levels. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Rampo, NY; NY State Ct of Appeals 1972
🗑
|
||||
| show | Construction Industry of Sonoma Co. v. City of Peteluma; US Ct of Appeals for the 4th Circuit 1975
🗑
|
||||
| show | Associated Homebuilders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore, CA; Calif. SC 1976
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 1981
🗑
|
||||
| show | Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent 1984
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC found that placing restrictions on the time, place & manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic & crime) not the content. | show 🗑
|
||||
| The court upheld a zoning ordinance that linited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. Court found that the city doesn't have to guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 2000, 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking. Court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest. This is a ? amendment case. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | US v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co. 1896; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| show | Pennsylvania Coal Co v. Mahon, 1922; 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| The USSC held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The court found that urban renewal was a valid public purpose and is part of what amendment? | show 🗑
|
||||
| This court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment backed expectations & the character of gov't action. Court weighed economic impact of the regulation on investment backed expectations. | show 🗑
|
||||
| USSC found that where there is a physical occupation, there is a taking. Cable TV Co. installed cables on a bldg to serve the tenants of the bldg & to serve other bldgs. Allowing the cable co to occupy the land was considered a taking. What amendment? | show 🗑
|
||||
| USSC found that if a property is unusable for a period of time, then not only can the ordinance be set aside, but the property owner can subject the gov't to pay for damages. What amendment? | show 🗑
|
||||
| USSC found that the enactment of regulations didn't constitute a taking. Court found that the enactment of the Act was justified by the public interests protected by the Act. | show 🗑
|
||||
| This court found that a taking had not occurred. The public utilities challenged a federal statute that auhorized the Federal Communications Commission to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles. | show 🗑
|
||||
| USSC found that regulations must serve a substantial public purpose & that exactions are valid as long as the exaction & the project are reasonably related. Also found that the CCC's req't to dedicate an easment for public beach access was not reasonable | show 🗑
|
||||
| USSC found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left) aafter the regulation is in place, except where derived from the state's law of property & nuisance. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Dolan v. Tigard, USSC, 1994 -- 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| show | Dolan v. Tigard; USSC 1994
🗑
|
||||
| This taking claim was not ripe for adjudication because the owners did not attempt to sell all TDR's. Petitioner owned undeveloped land near Lake Tahoe. Land could not be developed under agency regulations. | show 🗑
|
||||
| Court upheld a jury award of $1.45m in favor of the development based on the city's repeaded denials of a development permit for a 190 unit res. complex on the beach. Develp. was in conformance with zoning ord. and compreh. plan. | show 🗑
|
||||
| Property owner claimed inverse condemnation. Was deinied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club. Court found that acquistion of title after the effective date of reg. doesn't bar reg. taking claim. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, USSC 1997 -- 5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| This court found that the moratoria didn't constitute a taking req'ing compensation.The TRPA imposed 2 moratoria on develop. in the Lk Tahoe Basin while agency formulated a compreh. plan for the area. Owners sued, claiming a taking | show 🗑
|
||||
| The court overturned a portion of the Agins case declaring that regul. of a property effects a taking if it doesn't substantially advance legitimate state interests. Court found the 1st prong imprecise & not appropriate for determining if taking occured. | show 🗑
|
||||
| What court/case ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied a CUP for an antenna can't seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996? | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraa, USSC 1974 -- 14th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| show | 14th Amendment; City of Boerne, TX v. Flores 1997
🗑
|
||||
| show | Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, (1922)
🗑
|
||||
| show | Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co, 1926
🗑
|
||||
| Established aesthetics and redevelopment as valid public purposes for exercising the power of eminent domain. | show 🗑
|
||||
| Ordinance creating a PUD Dist. & authorizing the planning commission to approve the type, size & location of buildgs & uses w/in the district wasn't in violation of the municipal comp. plan or an illegal delegation of legislative power to the commission. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 1971
🗑
|
||||
| show | Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission, 1971
🗑
|
||||
| Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies. | show 🗑
|
||||
| Recognized growth phasing programs. Zoning ordinance, allowing subdivision development only by special permit upon showing that adequate municipal facilities and services were available or would be provided by the developer. | show 🗑
|
||||
| Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern regulatory scheme. Shoreland zoning ord. providing for the creation of conservancy, recreational, & general purpose districts along navigable streams & other bodies of water upheld as constituti | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, 1973
🗑
|
||||
| Opened up the possibility to control pornography via land use. Special requirements applicable to adult theatres & bookstores upheld. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 1977
🗑
|
||||
| Created modern ESA law (protecting the snail darter). USSC in a 6-3 decision held that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits the completion & operation of the Tellico Dam | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 1978
🗑
|
||||
| show | Agins v. City of Tiburon, 1980
🗑
|
||||
| Restrictions on the development of the Grand Central Terminal did not amount to a taking of property, since Penn Central could transfer the development rights to the other properties and a reasonable return on the property was allowed. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 1981
🗑
|
||||
| Held that any physical occupation is a taking, no matter how de minimis. State law that req'd landlords to permit installation of cable tv facilities on their property constituted a taking because it was a physical invasion of permanent duration. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel (II), 1983
🗑
|
||||
| Defined ripeness doctrine for judicial review. No final decision for judicial review has been made & a claim of a taking w/out just compensation is premature where a property owner fails to seek the possible relief of variance & condemnation procedures. | show 🗑
|
||||
| Allowed damages (as opposed to invalidation) as a remedy for regulatory takings. Just compensation clause of 5th Amendment requires compensation for temporary takings which occur as a result of regulations ultimately invalidated in court. | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,1987
🗑
|
||||
| Compensation to be paid to landowners when regulations deprive them of all economically beneficial land use unless uses are disallowed by title or by state law background principles of private & public nuisances | show 🗑
|
||||
| show | Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994
🗑
|
||||
| Applied the ESA to land development. Scty of Interior's definition of "harm" to endangered species (prohibited by ESA of 1973) is valid when defined as "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife" | show 🗑
|
||||
| Sanctioned the use of moratoria and reaffirmed the parcel-as-a-whole rule for takings review. Moratoria on development are not per se takings under the 5th Amendment, but should be analyzed under the multi-factor Penn Central test. | show 🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
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
Created by:
Firecracker
Popular Geography sets