Save
Busy. Please wait.
Log in with Clever
or
show password
Forgot Password?
Don't have an account?  Sign up 
Sign up using Clever
or
Username is available taken
show password

Your email address is only used to allow you to reset your password. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Case

Welch v. Swasey, 214 US 91
click to flip
focusNode
Didn't know it?
click below
 
Knew it?
click below
Don't know

Case

Eubank v. City of Richmond US Supreme Court
Remaining cards (33)
Know
0:00
edit
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 - Case Law

Stack #36237

CaseRuling
Welch v. Swasey, 214 US 91 (1909) The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height.
Eubank v. City of Richmond US Supreme Court (1912) The Court first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian US Supreme Court (1915) The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. US Supreme Court (1926) The Court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. The court first upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge; US Supreme Court (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).
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975) The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibits multifamily, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing. The court required the Town to open its doors to those of all income levels.
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.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975) The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976) The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc; US Supreme Court (1976) The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.
Metromedia, Inc v. City of San Diego US Supreme Court (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 US Supreme Court (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. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc. US Supreme Court (1986) The Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic and crime) not the content.
City of Boerne v. Flores Supreme Court (1997)This case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the act is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforcement powers of the 14th amendment.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 Declares that no gov. may implementland use regulation in a manner that imposes substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution, unless the gov. demonstrates that imposition of burden both is in furtherance of compelling governmental interest.
Munn v. Illinois; Supreme Court (1876) The Court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking. The Court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest.
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; US Supreme Court (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; US Supreme Court (1922) The court found 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; US Supreme Court (1954) The court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The court found that urban renewal was a valid public purpose.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; US Supreme Court (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.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; US Supreme Court (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; US Supreme Court (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; US Supreme Court (1987) The Court found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking. The Court found that the enactment of the Act was justified by the public interests protected by the Act.
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; US Supreme Court (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; US Supreme Court (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; US Supreme Court (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.
Agins v. City of Tiburon; US Supreme Court (1992) The Court upheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and determined this zoning was not a taking.
Dolan v. Tigard; US Supreme Court (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; US Supreme Court (1997) The Court found that Suitum's taking claim was not ripe for adjudication because she had not attempted to sell her Transfer of Development Rights.
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; US Supreme Court (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 permit for a 190-unit residential complex on ocean front property.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; US Supreme Court (2001) The property owner claimed inverse condemnation.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. Case was remanded.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; US Supreme Court (2002)The Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation. The Tahoe RPA imposed two moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comp plan for the area. Property owners claimed a taking.
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc; US Supreme Court (2005)S.C. overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent declaring that regulation of property effects a taking if it does not advance legitimate state interests. Court found this imprecise and not appropriate for detrmining a taking.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; US Supreme Court (2005) The Supreme 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.
Created by: kgoddard
 

 



Voices

Use these flashcards to help memorize information. Look at the large card and try to recall what is on the other side. Then click the card to flip it. If you knew the answer, click the green Know box. Otherwise, click the red Don't know box.

When you've placed seven or more cards in the Don't know box, click "retry" to try those cards again.

If you've accidentally put the card in the wrong box, just click on the card to take it out of the box.

You can also use your keyboard to move the cards as follows:

If you are logged in to your account, this website will remember which cards you know and don't know so that they are in the same box the next time you log in.

When you need a break, try one of the other activities listed below the flashcards like Matching, Snowman, or Hungry Bug. Although it may feel like you're playing a game, your brain is still making more connections with the information to help you out.

To see how well you know the information, try the Quiz or Test activity.

Pass complete!
"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards