Home > Flashcards > Print Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?
Non-related persons living together
"A zoning ordinance, enacted by a legislative body, should be granted deference, as long as the ordinance does not implicate either fundamental rights or suspect classes, and the ordinance has a reasonable relationship to a governmental objective "
Court ruled in favor of zoning ordinance legality
Village of Belle Terre et al. v. Boraas et al. 416 US 1 (1974).
The city of D.C. condemned a department store
1. The condemnation of private property for slum clearance is a proper exercise of the police power.
2.The condemnation of this property is a public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause
Berman et al., Executors, v. Parker et al., No.22 Supreme Court. 348 U.S. 26 (1954
In KY - State and Local governments may not pass any law that restricts the sale of property solelybased on the color of the proposed buyer or occupant. To do so is a direct violation of the 14th amendment protection against deprivation of property rights without due process of law
Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917)
In Michigan, the power to enact a zoning ordinance is not implicit in "home rule" authority or in a grant of the police power; it must be expressly enabled
Clements v. McCabe, 210 Mich. 207 (1920)
In order for a taking by a municipality to be constitutional, there must be an “essential nexus” between the legitimate public interest and the reasons for the taking, as well as a “rough proportionality.” It is the burden of the government to show the degree of connectivity
Florence Dolan, Petitioner v. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374 (1994)
Local zoning ordinances are a lawful and reasonable application of police power. The basis for this decision is based on the success of, and general provision of public welfare through building codes.
VILLAGE OF EUCLID ET AL. v. AMBLER REALTY COMPANY, 272 U.S. 365 (1926)
spot zoning case where the city put in a Planned residential zone, but some residents challenged it as spot zoning. court upheld ordinance as spot zoning is a judicial decision
Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, 264 Ore. 574 (1973)
An owner of property deprived of all uses must be compensated under the JustCompensation Clause, even for the period of time before the action was considered a “taking.” - Thanks Mike
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County, California,482 U.S. 304 (1987)
Transfer of property condemned under eminent domain to a private entity must continue to have formal public oversight to be considered “public use” and Poletown Neighborhood Association v. Detroit is overturned.
Wayne County v. Hathcock, 684 N.W. 2d 765 (Mich. 2004).
Eminent domain may be used to transfer title fee simple between two private properties for the purposes of public use or welfare
HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY ET AL v. MIDKIFF ET AL., 467 U.S. 229 (1984)
Economic development, implemented through a development plan, provides sufficient justification of public purpose and satisfies the public use requirement for eminent domain in the 5th amendment.
Kelo et al. v. City of New London 545 U.S. (2005)
Wanted to build a Wal-Mart - was denied a conditional use permit because too many employees and too large of a store:
Court found that protecting character of a town is constitutional and a valid use of police power
Loreto Development Co., et al., Appellees v. Village of Chardon, Ohio, 119 Ohio App. 3d 524 U.S. (1996)
Regulatory takings case about the cable on the roof:
The government action as a permenant occupation of property effects regulatory taking only to the extent of that occupation, regardless of whether action a creates a public benefit or has minimal impact on the owner. This case established the permanent physical presence test
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982)
established the total takings test. The south carolina beachfront case that. The beach front mgmt act deprived guy of erecting homes on beachfront prop.
David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S.1003
Ordinances intruding on the personal freedoms of family life, as protected by the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, are unconstitutional if they are unrelated to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Any such ordinance is a violation of substantive due process.
Grandma raising grandchildren that are cousins - violated local family residency ordinance
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494 (1977).
Beachfront family wanted to buldoze a bungalo and buld a 3bd home. city said yes if they include an easement for a walkway.
This is not a valid use of land-use regulation power because of the “lack of nexus between the condition and the original purpose of the building restriction.
There must be a reasonable relationship between a land-use condition and the effect of the development
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 483 U.S. 825 (1987)
A claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation challenged.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 US 606 (2001)
Racially restrictive covenants when enforced by a court of law are unconstitutionalunder the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Shelley ET. UX. v. Kraemer ET. UX. 334 U.S. 1 (1948)
Temporary moratoria depriving the economic use of land does not constitute a compensable per se taking requiring compensation as described by the Fifth Amendment.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al. 122 S. Ct. 1465. Decided April 23, 2002
A city zoning ordinance is not said to violate the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution’s equal protection clause, even if it explicitly cause some individuals economic harm, so long as the ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose.
Forced businesses to not sell furniture in order to protect it's downtown furniture businesses
Adrian Hernandez v. City of Hanford, 41 Cal. 4th 279 (2007).