Help

Options

focusNode

Didn't know it?
click below

Knew it?
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

AICP-Legal

Legal Principles & Cases in Planning

Question	Answer
Dillon's Rule	Gave local governments only those powers that were expressly given to them by the state constitution or legislative statute
Police Power	Capacity of the state to regulate behavior and enforce order - general welfare, morals, health and safety. Zoning is an exercise of police power.
Euclid v. Ambler, US Supreme Court 1926	Established zoning as a valid exercise of police power by local government. Alfred Bettman filed brief with the court
5th Amendment	Just compensation for takings; due process
1st Amendment	Freedom of Speech Freedom of Religion Freedom of Association
14th Amendment	Due Process Clause Substantive Due Process Procedural Due Process Equal Protection
Due Process Clause.	State can make needful regulations for the protection of public welfare, compensation is not required where these regulations are reasonable although they may deprive an owner of the use of his property.
Village of Belle Terre v. Borea; US Supreme Court 1972	Court extended zoning to include a community's desire for certain types of lifestyles as legitimate under police power. Decision upheld regulation that banned more than 2 unrelated people living together. 14th Amendment
Vill of Arlington Heights v Metro Housing Dev Corp;	USSC 1977 Concerned denial of a rezoning from single family to multifamily and question of whether racial discrimination. Denial upheld by USSC. 14th Amendment
City of Boerne v Flores; US Supreme Court 1997	Church in historic district prohibited from enlarging. Found to exceed the enforcement powers of the 14th Amendment.
Welch v Swasey; US Supreme Court 1909	established right of municipalities to regulate building height. such regulations (including mode of construction) for the safety, comfort and convenience of other people and the benefit of property owners are generally valid.
Eubank v City of Richmond US Supreme Court 1912	Affirmed the use of setback regulations (overturned setbacks in this case though because the implementation - other property owners established setbacks - was unreasonable exercise of police power)
Hadacheck v Sebastian, US Supreme Court 1915	approved the regulation of the location of land uses (zoning - police power). Existing brickyard became surrounded by residential area. Regulations precluded his continued use.
Nectow v City of Cambridge; US Supreme Court 1928	Used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it violated due process clause - did not promote public health, safety, morals or welfare (14th Amendment)
Macromedia v City of San Diego; US Supreme Court 1981	overruled an ordinance that banned off-premise commercial signs because it discriminated between commercial and non-commercial (not banned). 1st Amendment
Young v American Mini Theaters; USSC 1976	upheld zoning ordinance that dispersed adult business throughout the city (Detroit) 1st Amendment
City of Renton v Playtime Theaters; USSC 1986	upheld zoning ordinance that restrict adult use to single district. ok to restrict time, place, and manner because treating traffic and crime (secondary effects) no the content. City does not have to guarantee available land at reasonable price. 1st
Religious Land Use & Inst Person Act of 2000	No government may implement land use regulations in a manner that imposes substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution. Govt must demonstrate reg furthers compelling govt interest and it is the least restrictive means of doing so.
Pennsylvania Coal v Mahon; US Supreme Court 1922	If a land use regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. 5th Amendment.
Berman v Parker; US Supreme Court 1954	held aesthetics and urban redevelopment is a valid public purpose to exercise eminent domain. Precursor to Kelo. 5th Amendment
Penn Central Trans v NYC; US Supreme Court 1978	Air rights - Penn Station wanted to expand - prohibited by zoning. Court decision it was not a taking. Considered extent value declined, economic viability left remaining, and character of regulation to determine if it took property rights. 5th Amend.
Agins v City of Tiburon; US Supreme Court 1980	Upheld city's right to zone property at low-density. Not a taking. 5th Amendment.
Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV; USSC 1982	Where there is a physical occupation there is a taking. (law required cable facilities on private properties) 5th Amendment
1st English Evan Lutheran Church v Cty of LA; USSC 1987	If a property is unusable for a period of time (due to regulation) the property owner can require compensation. Allowed damages as opposed to invalidation as a remedy for regulatory takings. 5th Amendment
Nollan v California Coastal Commission; USSC 1987	Looked at "essential nexus". Regs must serve substantial public purpose - the exation and the public purpose must be reasonably related. CCC requirement for easement was not reasonable. 5th Amendment.
Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council; USSC 1992	A taking has occurred if after the reg is in pace there is a total reduction in value to a property. Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principles of law. 5th Amendment.
Dolan v Tigard, US Supreme Court 1994	"Rational Nexus" test was furthered to "rough proportionality" test. Conditions that require deeding portions of a property to the govt can be justified where there is a relationship between the nature and extent of the proposed development.
Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; USSC 1997	Claim of a taking was ripe for adjudication. (Did Suitum have to transfer development rights before suing for a taking?)
City of Monterrey v Del Monte Dunes; US Supreme Court 1999	Despite meeting zoning regs and comprehensive plan, development was repeatedly denied permits. Court determined compensation was due.
Palazzolo v Rhode Island; US Supreme Court 2001	Acquiring property after a regulation takes effect does not bar regulatory takings claims.
Tahoe-Sierra Pres Council v Tahoe Regl Planning Agency;	US Supreme COurt 2002 A temporary moratorium on development does not constitute a regulatory taking. 5th Amendment.
Lingle v Chevron; US Supreme Court 2005	Threw our takings test related to whether a regulation "substantially advances" legitimate state interests - imprecise and not appropriate. 5th Amendment
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v Abrams; US Supreme Court 2005	Established the remedies available to a property owner if a local jurisdiction violates the Telecommunications Act. May remedy violation and issue permit - but not receive damages.
Kelo v City of New London; US Supreme COurt 2005	Economic development is a valid use of eminent domain. Power of eminent domain was not expanded or restricted but public ownership is not the only way to promote a public purpose.
San Remo Hotel v San Francisco; USSC 2005	State courts are fully competent to adjudicate constitutional challenges to local land use decisions.
Cheney v Village 2 at New Hope; Pennsylvania 1968	Legitimized the planned unit development process. Not in violation of the municipal comp plan or an illegal delegation of legislative power to the planning commission.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe; USSC 1971	Established the "hard look" doctrine for environmental impact review. Federal funds may not be used to impact a public park if a feasible and prudent alternative route exists. If no alt - harm must be minimized
Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v AEC;	AEC Atomic Energy Commission. Made NEPA requirements judicially enforceable. DC Circuit Court 1971
Sierra Club v Morton; US Supreme Court 1972	Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies (standing)
Golden v Planning Board of Ramapo; NY 1972	Adequate municipal facilities were required to proceed with subdivision development. Constituted a rational attempt to provide sequential and orderly growth.
Just v Marinette County; Wisconsin 1972	Landowner has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential natural character of his land to use it for a purpose for which it is unsuited and which injures the rights of others.
Fasano v Board of Cty Comm of Washington County; Oregon 1973	Required zoning to be consistent with comprehensive plans. Rezoning is quasi-judicial - the applicant bears the burden to justify the rezoning.
Tennessee Valley Authority v Hill; US Supreme Court 1978	Held the Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits the completion and operation of the Tellico Dam.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v Mt Laurel II; NJ 1983	Affirmed and refined state constitutional requirement for fair share of low-moderate income housing - created fair housing model remedy for exclusionary zoning. Consolidation of 6 cases.
Williamson Cty Regl Planning Comm v Hamilton Bank; USSC 1985	Defined the ripeness doctrine for judicial review of takings claims. Claim of a taking is premature where property has not sought relief by variance and condemnation procedures.
Babbitt v Sweet Home Chapter Greater Oregon; USSC 1995	Applied Endangered Species Act to land development. Definition of harm - significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.
Munn v Illinois, US Supreme Court 1876	A state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking. Established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest.
Thomas Cusack v City of Chicago; US Supreme COurt 1917	neighbor consent to commerical signage required when more than 1/2 of block is residential. Valid exercise of police power to allow the affected residents to voice concerns and provide consent.
Town of Windsor v Whitnet; Connecticut 1920	PC duty to make surveys, maps, designate public streets, layouts. Held valid exercise police power when it regulates the free exercise private property that is detrimental to public interest.
Romar Realty v Board of Commissioners; New Jersey 1921	Regulation prohibiting construction of one-story building within setback of 80' was not a proper exercise of police power. Only to beautify, did not relate to public welfare.

Created by: katec363

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries: