Term
| Penn Central Transportation Co. v. CITY OF NEW YORK |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Pennsylvania Coal Co. vs. Mahon |
|
Definition
| 1922 - first decision to hold that a land use regulation constitutes a taking. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1954 - Eminent Domain - 5th Amendment (not violated) - the court supported redevelopment program that took property through eminent domain and resold the property to private developers for redevelopment. Aesthetics / redevelopment (urban renewal) = valid public purpose. It changed the test for eminent domain as the court transformed the words "public use" to mean "public purpose". |
|
|
Term
| Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapa |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1994 - State tried to tie an expansion permit to the creation of public greenway. SC found it to be a taking because altough it passed essential nexus, property owners burden was not roughly proportional to the public benefit |
|
|
Term
| Kaiser Aetna, et al. v. united States |
|
Definition
| 1979 - US Supreme Court found the government had done a taking involving the development of a marina style community, the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, and the decision that the government had lead the developer to expect that their property would remain private property |
|
|
Term
| Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp. |
|
Definition
| 932 - owner can't make unreasonable use of premises if it creates a nuisance - considers physical nature, social value, extent, and duration of nuisance. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1887, public nuisances defined - validated state and local government actions that properly protect "public health, public morals, or public safety. |
|
|
Term
| Netcow v. City of Cambridge |
|
Definition
| 1928 - Plaintiff's land was rezoned. He had a deal to sell the land but it fell through after the ordinance was passed. A plan for widening of the street would trim the property which will become no longer useful. Lower court: upheld the zoning ordinance. Case referred to a MASTER. The SC: the zoning ordinance did not serve a valid public purpose and was struck down. The zoning of residential near industrial and railroad purpose = unconstitutional. Influence: Euclid v. Ambler, Zahn v. Bd. of Public Works |
|
|
Term
| Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington Co. |
|
Definition
| 1973 - shifted burden of proof to municipality for rezoning cases in Oregon. |
|
|
Term
| Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel |
|
Definition
| 1975, 1983 - NJ State Supreme Court overturned zoning because it was inconsitent w/sate fair housing act - exclusionary zoning |
|
|
Term
| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manattan CATV Corp. |
|
Definition
| 1982 - taking - if regulation causes physical invasion of property - its a taking. |
|
|
Term
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council |
|
Definition
| 1992 - taking - if regulation is based on public nuisance statute and the regulation causes property to lose economic value - its a taking. |
|
|
Term
| Nolann v. California Coastal Commission |
|
Definition
| 1987 - if regulation does not substantially advance a legit state interest, its a taking. Had to do with state requiring an easement of beachfront public access as a condition of building permit. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a condition for development is imposed on a parcel of land that requires the developer to mitigate anticipated negative impacts of the development. See Nolann v. California Coastal Commission |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
