Exam (elaborations)
AICP Exam - Law Cases Questions With Answers
- Course
- Institution
AICP Exam - Law Cases Questions With Answers
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
AICP Exam - Law Cases Questions WithAnswers
Zoning Cases (Summary) - 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 - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - Answer -
GM CASE - The court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development
proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and
firehouses. A proposal would only be approved upon reaching a certain point level. Developers could
increase their point total by providing the facilities themselves.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
(1975) - Answer - GM CASE - The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976) -
Answer - GM CASE - The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013) - Answer - The Court found that the 1875 General
Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement for the railroad's land.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Silvah. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67866 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now