AICP Law Cases
Mugler v Kansas - answer 1887, 14th amendment due process case which rules that
Kansas could prohibit sale of alcohol based on police power.
Welch v Swasey - answer 1909, Boston can impose different height limits on
buildings in different districts
Eubank v City of Richmond - answer 1912, A zoning ordinance establishing building
setback lines was held unconstitutional and not a valid use of the police power; violates
the due process of law and is therefore unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
Hadacheck v Sebastian - answer 1915, Supreme Court upheld Los Angeles case
prohibiting establishment of a preexisting brickyard declared a "public nuisance."
Pennsylvania Coal Company v Mahon - answer 1922, Supreme Court indicated for
the first time that a regulation of land use might be a taking if it goes too far.
Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty Co - answer 1926, Established zoning as a legal
use of police power by local government. The main issue in this case was "nuisance,"
and that a certain use near a residence could be considered "a pig in a parlor." Argued
by Alfred Betteman, future 1st president of the ASPO.
Nectow v City of Cambridge - answer 1928, Court found for Nectow and against a
provision in Cambridge's zoning ordinance based on the due process clause. However,
it did NOT overturn Euclid. This was the last zoning challenge to come before the
Supreme Court until...
Berman v Parker - answer 1954, Established aesthetics and redevelopment as valid
public purposes for exercising eminent domain. Washington D.C. took private property
and resold to a developer to achieve objectives of an established redevelopment plan.
Jones v Mayer - answer 1968, Ruling that discrimination in selling houses was not
permitted based on the 13th Amendment and Section 1982 abolishing slavery and
creating equality for all U.S. citizens.
Cheney v Village 2 at New Hope - answer 1968, Legitimized planning unit
development (PUD) process.
, Golden v Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo - answer 1972, NY State Court of
Appeals case that upheld a growth control plan based on the availability of public
services. Case further emphasized the importance of the Comp Plan and set the scene
for nationwide growth management plans.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe - answer 1971, Established hard look
doctrine for environmental impact review. Section 4(f) DOT Act of 1966 -- park use ok if
no "feasible and prudent" alternative and "all possible planning to minimize harm."
Calvert Cliff's Coordinating Committee v Atomic Energy Commission - answer 1971,
Made National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements judicially enforceable.
Sierra Club v Morton - answer 1972, Opened up environmental citizen suits to
discipline resource agencies.
Just v Marinett County - answer 1972, Significantly integrated public trust theories
into a modern regulatory scheme. Shoreland zoning ordinance along navigable streams
and other water bodies upheld.
Fasano v Board of Commissions of Washington Co, Oregon - answer 1973,
Required zoning to be consistent with comp plans, and recognized that rezonings may
be judicial rather than legislative. Central issue was spot zoning, which must meet the
two measures to be deemed valid: 1st there must be a public need for the change in
question, and 2nd the need must be best served by changing the zoning of the
particular parcel in question as compared with other available property.
Village of Belle Terre v Boraas - answer 1974, Supreme Court upheld the restrictive
definition of a family as being no more than two unrelated people living together.
South Burlington County NAACP v Township of Mount Laurell I - answer 1974, NJ
Supreme Court held that in developing municipalities in growing and expanding areas,
provision must be made to accommodate a fair share of low and moderate income
housing.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v Petaluma - answer 1975, Limited the
number of residential building permits per year to 500 and placed a population cap of
55,000. The purpose was to make sure that the growth rate did not exceed the City's
ability to fund capital improvements. Court upheld.
Young v American Mini Theaters - answer 1976, First sexually-oriented business
case, which held that zoning for adult businesses does not automatically infringe on 1st
Amendment rights.
Hills v Dorothy Gautreaux - answer 1976, The Chicago Housing Authority and HUD
had to spread out concentration of public housing (scattered site housing), including into
Mugler v Kansas - answer 1887, 14th amendment due process case which rules that
Kansas could prohibit sale of alcohol based on police power.
Welch v Swasey - answer 1909, Boston can impose different height limits on
buildings in different districts
Eubank v City of Richmond - answer 1912, A zoning ordinance establishing building
setback lines was held unconstitutional and not a valid use of the police power; violates
the due process of law and is therefore unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
Hadacheck v Sebastian - answer 1915, Supreme Court upheld Los Angeles case
prohibiting establishment of a preexisting brickyard declared a "public nuisance."
Pennsylvania Coal Company v Mahon - answer 1922, Supreme Court indicated for
the first time that a regulation of land use might be a taking if it goes too far.
Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty Co - answer 1926, Established zoning as a legal
use of police power by local government. The main issue in this case was "nuisance,"
and that a certain use near a residence could be considered "a pig in a parlor." Argued
by Alfred Betteman, future 1st president of the ASPO.
Nectow v City of Cambridge - answer 1928, Court found for Nectow and against a
provision in Cambridge's zoning ordinance based on the due process clause. However,
it did NOT overturn Euclid. This was the last zoning challenge to come before the
Supreme Court until...
Berman v Parker - answer 1954, Established aesthetics and redevelopment as valid
public purposes for exercising eminent domain. Washington D.C. took private property
and resold to a developer to achieve objectives of an established redevelopment plan.
Jones v Mayer - answer 1968, Ruling that discrimination in selling houses was not
permitted based on the 13th Amendment and Section 1982 abolishing slavery and
creating equality for all U.S. citizens.
Cheney v Village 2 at New Hope - answer 1968, Legitimized planning unit
development (PUD) process.
, Golden v Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo - answer 1972, NY State Court of
Appeals case that upheld a growth control plan based on the availability of public
services. Case further emphasized the importance of the Comp Plan and set the scene
for nationwide growth management plans.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe - answer 1971, Established hard look
doctrine for environmental impact review. Section 4(f) DOT Act of 1966 -- park use ok if
no "feasible and prudent" alternative and "all possible planning to minimize harm."
Calvert Cliff's Coordinating Committee v Atomic Energy Commission - answer 1971,
Made National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements judicially enforceable.
Sierra Club v Morton - answer 1972, Opened up environmental citizen suits to
discipline resource agencies.
Just v Marinett County - answer 1972, Significantly integrated public trust theories
into a modern regulatory scheme. Shoreland zoning ordinance along navigable streams
and other water bodies upheld.
Fasano v Board of Commissions of Washington Co, Oregon - answer 1973,
Required zoning to be consistent with comp plans, and recognized that rezonings may
be judicial rather than legislative. Central issue was spot zoning, which must meet the
two measures to be deemed valid: 1st there must be a public need for the change in
question, and 2nd the need must be best served by changing the zoning of the
particular parcel in question as compared with other available property.
Village of Belle Terre v Boraas - answer 1974, Supreme Court upheld the restrictive
definition of a family as being no more than two unrelated people living together.
South Burlington County NAACP v Township of Mount Laurell I - answer 1974, NJ
Supreme Court held that in developing municipalities in growing and expanding areas,
provision must be made to accommodate a fair share of low and moderate income
housing.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v Petaluma - answer 1975, Limited the
number of residential building permits per year to 500 and placed a population cap of
55,000. The purpose was to make sure that the growth rate did not exceed the City's
ability to fund capital improvements. Court upheld.
Young v American Mini Theaters - answer 1976, First sexually-oriented business
case, which held that zoning for adult businesses does not automatically infringe on 1st
Amendment rights.
Hills v Dorothy Gautreaux - answer 1976, The Chicago Housing Authority and HUD
had to spread out concentration of public housing (scattered site housing), including into
