AICP Law Cases Exam Study Guide 2024
Mugler v Kansas - Answer️️ -1887, 14th amendment due process
case which rules that Kansas could prohibit sale of alcohol based
on police power.
Welch v Swasey - Answer️️ -1909, Boston can impose different
height limits on buildings in different dist...
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.
2
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 SophiaBennett. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
