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
Laws and Cases
AICP Prep: Laws and Cases
| Name | details |
|---|---|
| The Clean Water Act | 1977; Amendment to Federal Water Pollutant Control Act of 1972. Requires a permit to discharge pollutants into a body of water. Regulates amount of water discharged and types of pollutants. |
| Clean Air Act | passed in 1970; major amendments in 1977 & 1991. Air Quality Control Regions created; Fed. Gov't sets ambient standards and states create methods to enable standards to be met. Permits required to release pollutants into the air. |
| The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) | 1969; created Council on Environmental Quality; requires that environmental impacts of a project be considered; Environmental Assessment is required via an Environmental Impact Assessment. |
| The Rivers and Harbors Act | 1899; prohibited the construction of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over any navigable waterway and wharfs, piers, or jetties, and the excavation or fill of navigable waters in the U.S. without Congressional approval. l |
| The Water Pollutant Control Act | 1948; allowed the Surgeon General to create a program Improving pollution and sanitation of surface and underground water. Allows Fed. Works Admin to help governments construct water treatment plants. |
| The Water Quality Act | 1965; Established the Water Pollution Control Administration within the Dept. of the Interior. 1st time water quality was treated as an environmental concern and not public health. |
| The Clean Water Act | 1966; provided construction grants for wastewater treatment facilities. |
| Coastal Zone Management Act | 1972; amended in 1991; focused efforts to reduce polluted runoff in 29 coastal states |
| Federal Water Pollutant Control Act | 1972; Amended Water Pollutant Act of 1948; broadened gov't authority over water pollution and placed authority for it under EPA. Changed enforcement to regulating amt of pollutants discharged from point sources. |
| Endangered Species Act | 1973; amended 1988; provided protection of animal and plant species that the US Fish and Wildlife Service designates as threatened or endangered. |
| Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA | 1978; promoted alternative energy sources, energy efficiency, and reduced dependence on foreign oil; created a market for non-utility power producers and requires competition in the utility industry. |
| Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | 1980; created a $1.6 billion Superfund to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites and requires major industries to report annual releases of toxic wastes into the air, water, or ground. |
| Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) | 1976; amended 1986;gave EPA control of hazardous waste from "cradle to grave." management of hazardous waste, non-hazardous solid wastes. underground storage tanks for fuel and other substances |
| Toxic Substances Control Act | 1976; provided EPA with responsibility for reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. |
| Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act | 1947; rewritten in 1972 and updated in 1996; established procedures for registering pesticides with the U.S. DOA and established labeling provisions; requres EPA to regulate use & sale of pesticides |
| Safe Drinking Water Act | 1974 ; ensures that drinking water is safe. Protects both sources of drinking water and the water we drink |
| Executive Order 12898 | issued by President Clinton in 1994; requires federal agencies make achieving environmental justice part of their mission by addressing disproportionate adverse impacts on minority and lo-income population. |
| Welch v. Swasey | 1909: The Court establishes the right of municipalities to regulate building height. |
| Eubank v. City of Richmond | 1912; The Court first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case. |
| Hadacheck v. Sebastian | 1915; The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses. |
| Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. | 1926; The court first upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Initially based on nuisance lawes. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court. |
| Nectow v. City of Cambridge | 1928; 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). |
| Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo | 1972; court upheld a system that awarded points to development proposals based on utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. Approval relied on reaching a given point #. Developers could increase points by building facilities. |
| construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma | 1975; The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued. |
| Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore | 1976; Court upheld temporary moratorium on building permits. |
| Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc. | 2006; The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate greenhouse gases. |
| Rapanos v. United States | 2006; The Court found that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway. |
| SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection | 2006; The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. |
| Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc. | 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. |
| Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc | 1976; The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit. |
| Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego | 1981; The Court found that commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned non-commercial signs. |
| Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent | 1984; The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance does not regulate the content of the sign. Aesthetics advance a legitimate state interest. |
| City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. | 1986; Regulating secondary effects of adult entertainment is acceptable. City cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment. Does not have to guarantee land is available for a reasonable price though. |
| Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 | Gov't may not regulate land use that imposes substantial burden on a religious assembly or institution w/out demonstrating that imposition is both to further a compelling gov't interest and is the least restrictive means that interest. |
| Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona | 2014; The US Supreme Court found that the city cannot impose more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages. The Court found the sign ordinance was not content neutral. |
| United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company | 1896; The Court ruled that the acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose. This was the first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation. |
| Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon | 1922; The court found that if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. This was the first takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th Amendment. |
| Berman v. Parker | 1954; The court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The court found that urban renewal was a valid public purpose. |
| Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York | 1976; NYC passed 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, but it was not ruled as a taking that should receive compensation. |
| Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York | 1978; The court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment backed expectations, and the character of the government action. |
| Agins v. City of Tiburon | 1980; The Court upheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and determined this zoning was not a taking. Appellants had NOT started the review and approval process. No vested rights. |
| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation | 1982; The court found that where there is a physical occupation, there is a taking. The cable television company installed cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building and to serve other buildings. |
| First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles | 1987; The court 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 government to pay for damages. |
| Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis | 1987; Pennsylvania's Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act prohibits coal mining that causes subsidence damage to pre-existing public buildings, dwellings, The Act was justified by the public interests protected by the Act. |
| FCC v. Florida Power Corporation | 1987; The Court found that a taking had not occurred. 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. |
| Nollan v. California Coastal Commission | 1987; The Court found that regulations must serve a substantial public purpose and that exactions are valid as long as the exaction and the project are reasonably related. |
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council | 1992; The Court found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left) after the regulation is in place, except where derived from the state's law of property and nuisance. |
| Dolan v. Tigard | 1994; The Court found there must be a rational nexus between the exaction requirement and the development. The rough proportionality test was created from this case. |
| Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency | 1997; |
| City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd. | 1999; The Supreme Court upheld a jury award of $1.45 million in favor of the development based on the city's repeated denials of a development that conformed to the comp plan and zoning ordinance. |
| Palazzolo v. Rhode Island | 2001; acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims |
| Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al | 2002; moratoria during comprehensive planning does not constitute a taking. |
| Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc. | 2005; Court overturned part of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent: regulation of property effects a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. This formula imprecise and inappropriate to determine if a taking has occurred. |
| City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams | 2005; 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. |
| Kelo v City of New London | 2005; The Supreme Court ruled that a economic development is a valid use of eminent domain. The court found that it is not in a position to determine the amount or character of land needed for a particular public project. |
| 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; Is he government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until the land owner has agreed to dedicate land for a public use? yes if no specific regulation requiring the dedication exists. |
| Munn v. Illinois | 1876; The Court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest. The Court found that the regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good. |
| Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas | 1974;The court extended the concept of zoning under police power to include a community's desire for certain types of lifestyles. The court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single family. |
| Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation | 1977; The US Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Village acted in a racially discriminatory manner and overturned the findings of the previous two courts. They remanded to the lower court for further consideration. |
| Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel | 1975; The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing. The court required the Town to open its doors to those of all income levels. |
| City of Boerne v. Flores | 1997; The City of Boerne, Texas prohibited a church in a historic district from enlarging. The Supreme Court ruled that the act is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforcement powers of the fourteenth amendment. |
| City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center Inc. | 1985; the denial of a special use permit was based on irrational prejudice against the intellectually disabled and hence was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
Created by:
Shellymayo81984
Popular Standardized Tests sets