AICP Exam - Law Cases Exam Questions
With Correct Answers
Zoning Cases (Summary) - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔-Welch v. Swasey;
| | | | | | | |
(1909) regulate building height.
| | |
Eubank v. City of Richmond; (1912) first approved the use of setback
| | | | | | | | | | | |
regulations
Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) regulation of the location of land uses.
| | | | | | | | | |
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) community believed that
| | | | | | | | | | |
there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be
| | | | | | | | | | | |
upheld. Alfred Bettman
| |
Nectow v. City of Cambridge;(1928)
| | | |
rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance. no valid public
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the
| | | | | | | | | | | |
public).
,Before Comprehensive Zoning - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔-Before
| | | | | |
comprehensive zoning, regulation of land use was based on nuisance | | | | | | | | | |
laws. Under common law,
| | |
persons with real property are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their
| | | | | | | | | | | |
land. If this enjoyment is interrupted, for example through noise,
| | | | | | | | | |
pollution or odor, the affected party can claim a nuisance.
| | | | | | | | |
Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909) - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔-ZONING
| | | | | | | | | |
CASE - The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate
| | | | | | | | | | |
building height. An act in 1905 in Massachusetts enabled the limitation
| | | | | | | | | | |
of building heights and the court held that height discrimination is
| | | | | | | | | | |
based on reasonable grounds, is a proper exercise of the police power
| | | | | | | | | | | |
of the state, and does not violate the equal protection and due process
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
clauses of the 14th Amendment.
| | | |
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912) - CORRECT
| | | | | | | | | | |
ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - The state had a statute authorizing cities | | | | | | | | | |
and towns, among other things, 'to make regulations concerning the
| | | | | | | | | |
building of houses in the city or town, and in their discretion, . . . in
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
particular districts or along particular streets, to prescribe and establish
| | | | | | | | | |
building lines, or to require property owners in certain localities or
| | | | | | | | | | |
districts to leave a certain percentage of lots free from buildings and to
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
regulate the height of buildings.' The court held that the ordinance was
| | | | | | | | | | | |
a valid use of police power.
| | | | |
, Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915) - CORRECT
| | | | | | | | |
ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - The Court first approved the regulation of | | | | | | | | | |
the location of land uses. 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.
| | | | | | |
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926) -
| | | | | | | | | | | |
CORRECT ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - 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 key question before the court
| | | | | | | | | | |
was whether the Village of Euclid's zoning ordinance violated the Due
| | | | | | | | | | |
Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the
| | | | | | | | | | |
constitution. The key outcome of the court was that it upheld modern
| | | | | | | | | | | |
zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an
| | | | | | | | | | | |
influential brief with the court. | | | |
Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928) - CORRECT
| | | | | | | | | | |
ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - Two years after Euclid v. Ambler, 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). The Court ruled that it was a
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
| | | | | | | | |
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
of Appeals (1972) - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔-GM CASE - The court upheld
| | | | | | | | | | |
With Correct Answers
Zoning Cases (Summary) - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔-Welch v. Swasey;
| | | | | | | |
(1909) regulate building height.
| | |
Eubank v. City of Richmond; (1912) first approved the use of setback
| | | | | | | | | | | |
regulations
Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) regulation of the location of land uses.
| | | | | | | | | |
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) community believed that
| | | | | | | | | | |
there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be
| | | | | | | | | | | |
upheld. Alfred Bettman
| |
Nectow v. City of Cambridge;(1928)
| | | |
rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance. no valid public
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the
| | | | | | | | | | | |
public).
,Before Comprehensive Zoning - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔-Before
| | | | | |
comprehensive zoning, regulation of land use was based on nuisance | | | | | | | | | |
laws. Under common law,
| | |
persons with real property are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their
| | | | | | | | | | | |
land. If this enjoyment is interrupted, for example through noise,
| | | | | | | | | |
pollution or odor, the affected party can claim a nuisance.
| | | | | | | | |
Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909) - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔-ZONING
| | | | | | | | | |
CASE - The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate
| | | | | | | | | | |
building height. An act in 1905 in Massachusetts enabled the limitation
| | | | | | | | | | |
of building heights and the court held that height discrimination is
| | | | | | | | | | |
based on reasonable grounds, is a proper exercise of the police power
| | | | | | | | | | | |
of the state, and does not violate the equal protection and due process
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
clauses of the 14th Amendment.
| | | |
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912) - CORRECT
| | | | | | | | | | |
ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - The state had a statute authorizing cities | | | | | | | | | |
and towns, among other things, 'to make regulations concerning the
| | | | | | | | | |
building of houses in the city or town, and in their discretion, . . . in
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
particular districts or along particular streets, to prescribe and establish
| | | | | | | | | |
building lines, or to require property owners in certain localities or
| | | | | | | | | | |
districts to leave a certain percentage of lots free from buildings and to
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
regulate the height of buildings.' The court held that the ordinance was
| | | | | | | | | | | |
a valid use of police power.
| | | | |
, Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915) - CORRECT
| | | | | | | | |
ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - The Court first approved the regulation of | | | | | | | | | |
the location of land uses. 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.
| | | | | | |
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926) -
| | | | | | | | | | | |
CORRECT ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - 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 key question before the court
| | | | | | | | | | |
was whether the Village of Euclid's zoning ordinance violated the Due
| | | | | | | | | | |
Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the
| | | | | | | | | | |
constitution. The key outcome of the court was that it upheld modern
| | | | | | | | | | | |
zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an
| | | | | | | | | | | |
influential brief with the court. | | | |
Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928) - CORRECT
| | | | | | | | | | |
ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - Two years after Euclid v. Ambler, 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). The Court ruled that it was a
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
| | | | | | | | |
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
of Appeals (1972) - CORRECT ANSWER✔✔-GM CASE - The court upheld
| | | | | | | | | | |
