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
AICP - Cases
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926) | The key question was whether the Village of Euclid's zoning ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. The key outcome of the court was that it upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. |
| Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (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. (5th Amendment) |
| Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1976) | The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit. (1st Amendment) |
| Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court (1977) | Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts. |
| Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978) | The Court found that the NYC Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking. The Court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value. (5th Amendment) |
| Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980) | The Court upheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking.(5th Amendment) |
| Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981) | The Court found that commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs. (1st Amendment) |
| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982) | Held that any physical occupation is a taking. State law that required landlords to permit installation of cable television facilities on their property constituted a taking because it was a physical invasion of permanent duration. (5th Amendment) |
| Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (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. (14th Amendment) |
| First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (1987) | The Court found that if a property is unusable for a period of time, the ordinance doesn't apply and the property owner can subject the government to pay for damages. (5th Amendment) |
| Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987) | The question was whether the Commission’s requirement that owners of beachfront property seeking a building permit need to maintain public beachfront access constitutes a property taking. Ruled that CA must provide just compensation. (5th & 14th) |
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992) | The Court found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value after the regulation is in place. The Court found that Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations, and so the regulation constituted a taking. (5th) |
| Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994) | The Court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain to create a greenway and bicycle path by a business that wanted to expand. Not enough of a connection between the exaction requirement and the development. (5th) |
| Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; U.S. Supreme Court (2002) | The agency imposed two moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comprehensive plan for the area. The Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation. |
| Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915) | The court found that a zoning ordinance in Los Angeles that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. |
| Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005) | The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent. Takings clause challenges had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furthering the governmental interest. |
| Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) | The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases. |
| Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court (1974) | The Court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single-family. The court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values. (14th) |
Created by:
jrcosby
Popular History sets