AICP Exam - Planning Legal Cases
Had check v. Sebastian - answer 1915, US Supreme Court
Nuisance law
Zoning law can declare a use a nuisance by location even if it isn't a nuisance in other
cases. It is legitimate use of the police power to prohibit certain land uses, even those in
place before the ordinance is passed.
Brick maker can no longer make bricks after land zoned residential
Munn v. Illinois - answer (1877) United States Supreme Court Case that ended up
allowing states to regulate business within their borders, including railroads
Federalism - answer A system in which power is divided between the national and
state governments
1st Amendment - answer Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and
Petition
5th Amendment - answer TAKINGS
Criminal Proceedings; Due Process (no deprivation of property rights without DP);
Eminent Domain (Just compensation); Double Jeopardy; Protection from Self
incrimination
14th Amendment - answer 1870 - if you have a grievance over the state's use of its
power you may be able to get it reviewed by a federal court
Takings - answer From the 5th Amendment
You get just compensation
1. Direct physical invasion or seizure of your property - eminent domain
- Categorical or per se)Action that is the equivalent of invasion or taking
2. Regulatory: The state is reducing your ability to maximize your use or value (inverse
condemnation)
- exaction: imposed on your right to use your land requiring you to give something, such
as money or land
3. Not compensatible - government action has an indirectly negative value on your
property
, 10th Amendment - answer Powers Reserved to the States (Police Power)
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon - answer 1922 Regulatory Takings
Contract for Penn Coal to mine on the property - SCOTUS said that the state went too
far and mining would be allowed
- was there reasonable investment-backed expectation
- was the governmental action legitimate
- what degree of loss did they suffer
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York - answer 1978 - NY developed
TDR system - SCOTUS says the state did not go too far and the TDR was valid
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. - answer 1982 - NY legislation
requiring owners to allow private calbe companies to place boxes on roofs of private
apt. buildings and run cable along exterior walls. Legislation offered nominal
compensation
Holding: Permanent physical occupation require payments of compensation
irrespectively of the goal government is trying to promote or how minor of an intrustion.
Because permanent intrustion destroys 1) power to exclusively possess 2) power to
control use, 3) power to dispose without loss in value .... they are PER SE TAKINGS
that require compensation
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles - answer 1987
Temporary Takings are possible - moratorium on construction of buildings in a
floodplain.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council - answer 1992
SCOTUS - this is a taking because he lost all of his property value - he was not able to
do anything with it
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - answer
2000 Temporary Takings
SCOTUS Affirmed Penn Coal - temporary interference, even if it is complicated and
combined with a TDR did not eliminate all value of the property and no compensation
was required
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island - answer (2001, 5th) The land owner was denied a permit
to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club and was therefore an
unlawful taking. 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. The case was remanded.
Had check v. Sebastian - answer 1915, US Supreme Court
Nuisance law
Zoning law can declare a use a nuisance by location even if it isn't a nuisance in other
cases. It is legitimate use of the police power to prohibit certain land uses, even those in
place before the ordinance is passed.
Brick maker can no longer make bricks after land zoned residential
Munn v. Illinois - answer (1877) United States Supreme Court Case that ended up
allowing states to regulate business within their borders, including railroads
Federalism - answer A system in which power is divided between the national and
state governments
1st Amendment - answer Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and
Petition
5th Amendment - answer TAKINGS
Criminal Proceedings; Due Process (no deprivation of property rights without DP);
Eminent Domain (Just compensation); Double Jeopardy; Protection from Self
incrimination
14th Amendment - answer 1870 - if you have a grievance over the state's use of its
power you may be able to get it reviewed by a federal court
Takings - answer From the 5th Amendment
You get just compensation
1. Direct physical invasion or seizure of your property - eminent domain
- Categorical or per se)Action that is the equivalent of invasion or taking
2. Regulatory: The state is reducing your ability to maximize your use or value (inverse
condemnation)
- exaction: imposed on your right to use your land requiring you to give something, such
as money or land
3. Not compensatible - government action has an indirectly negative value on your
property
, 10th Amendment - answer Powers Reserved to the States (Police Power)
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon - answer 1922 Regulatory Takings
Contract for Penn Coal to mine on the property - SCOTUS said that the state went too
far and mining would be allowed
- was there reasonable investment-backed expectation
- was the governmental action legitimate
- what degree of loss did they suffer
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York - answer 1978 - NY developed
TDR system - SCOTUS says the state did not go too far and the TDR was valid
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. - answer 1982 - NY legislation
requiring owners to allow private calbe companies to place boxes on roofs of private
apt. buildings and run cable along exterior walls. Legislation offered nominal
compensation
Holding: Permanent physical occupation require payments of compensation
irrespectively of the goal government is trying to promote or how minor of an intrustion.
Because permanent intrustion destroys 1) power to exclusively possess 2) power to
control use, 3) power to dispose without loss in value .... they are PER SE TAKINGS
that require compensation
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles - answer 1987
Temporary Takings are possible - moratorium on construction of buildings in a
floodplain.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council - answer 1992
SCOTUS - this is a taking because he lost all of his property value - he was not able to
do anything with it
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - answer
2000 Temporary Takings
SCOTUS Affirmed Penn Coal - temporary interference, even if it is complicated and
combined with a TDR did not eliminate all value of the property and no compensation
was required
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island - answer (2001, 5th) The land owner was denied a permit
to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club and was therefore an
unlawful taking. 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. The case was remanded.
