Exam (elaborations)
AICP Law Cases Test Questions And Answers
- Course
- Institution
AICP Law Cases Test Questions And Answers
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
AICP Law Cases Test Questions AndAnswers
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. Section 4(f) DOT Act of 1966 -- park use ok if no "feasible and prudent"
alternative and "all possible planning to minimize harm."
Calvert Cliff's Coordinating Committee v Atomic Energy Commission - Answer - 1971, Made National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements judicially enforceable.
Sierra Club v Morton - Answer - 1972, Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline resource
agencies.
Just v Marinett County - Answer - 1972, Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern
regulatory scheme. Shoreland zoning ordinance along navigable streams and other water bodies upheld.
Fasano v Board of Commissions of Washington Co, Oregon - Answer - 1973, Required zoning to be
consistent with comp plans, and recognized that rezonings may be judicial rather than legislative.
Central issue was spot zoning, which must meet the two measures to be deemed valid: 1st there must
be a public need for the change in question, and 2nd the need must be best served by changing the
zoning of the particular parcel in question as compared with other available property.
Village of Belle Terre v Boraas - Answer - 1974, Supreme Court upheld the restrictive definition of a
family as being no more than two unrelated people living together.
South Burlington County NAACP v Township of Mount Laurell I - Answer - 1974, NJ Supreme Court held
that in developing municipalities in growing and expanding areas, provision must be made to
accommodate a fair share of low and moderate income housing.
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 $4.99. 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