Section 1
Preview this deck
Quasi-judicial or Adjudicative decisions
Front
| 5 | 0 | ||
| 4 | 0 | ||
| 3 | 0 | ||
| 2 | 0 | ||
| 1 | 0 |
Active users
0
All-time users
0
Favorites
0
Last updated
5 years ago
Date created
Mar 14, 2020
Cards (104)
Section 1
(50 cards)
Quasi-judicial or Adjudicative decisions
Judicial-type actions performed by individuals who are not judges. - These decisions interpret law based on facts, but the ruling is made by a publically apppointed or elected official, not a judge. U - sing occurs when a landowner requests an exemption, waiver, variance for one specific property. - Officials must observe due process and make finings of fact to support their decision.
Dillon's Rule
Local governments do not have inherent powers but are limited to those granted by a state constitution or legislature. - Because of this rule, a local government can only exercise zoning power after there has been a delegation of the power to zone by the state.
Estoppel
Precluded by its own act. Based on the concept of equity or fairness. Courts often use the terms vested rights and estoppels interchangeably. EX: Developer could argue that the government is estoppped from making the zoning change that affects the developers property. Requires proof that the landowner/developer made substantial expenditure in good faith reliance on some act of omission of the government.
Mugler v Kansas
1887. US Supreme Court ruled that the courts have the duty to strike down local laws that do not have a real or substantial relation to police power: to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the community. - Application of police power.
Administrative Decision-Making
Concerns actions or decisions to carry out policies or purposes previously declared by the legislative body. - At the local level, such administrative decision-making is usually performed by boards or commissions established by the legislative bodies. - - Their actions are sometimes referred to as quasi-judicial or adjudicative.
Legistlative Decision-Making
Legislative power is the power to establish public policy. - The making of legislative decisions is generally not subject to the requirements of the due process clause, which makes the process relatively informal. - Ex parte contacts with individuals outside the legislative chambers is permissible.
Suspect Classification
Where a land use classification impinges on such constitutional rights, a court will term such classification as suspect classification. - This triggers a more rigorous form of judicial review called strict scrutiny.
Average Reciprocity of Advantage
Usually the court will at least examine the degree in decline in property values in order to determine if the economic loss imposed by the regulation amounts to a taking. - This phrase refers to the proposition that a land use restriction that burdens all land within a district may also benefit the land by virtue of the fact that all the land is equally restricted. 0 It may determine that there is no taking because the benefits conferred equal the burdens imposed.
Findings of Fact
Demonstration in writing that its decision is supposed by facts is a procedural requirements that the due process clause imposes on administrative or quasi-judicial decision-making, not on legislative decisions.
Judicial standards for substantive due process review
Apply presumtion of consitutionality (meaning they will accept legitimacy if it is reasonably debatable). This places the burden of proof on the challenger. - More likely to find a violation at the state level than the federal level because courts will not presume constitutionality if it affects a fundamental right, such as freedom of speech. -->Then, the local government carry burden of justitification.
Substantive Due Process
Land use regulation must advance a legit govt purpose (usually public health, safety, morals, or general welfare).
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon
1922. The first decision to hold that a land use restriction that "goes too far" in restricting property constitutes a taking. - The US Supreme Court noted that "property may be regulated to a certain extent, but if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking" thus acknowledging the principle of a "regulatory taking" - Involved issues of eminent domain and takings
Due Process
Part of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Provides 4 protections: 1. procedural due process 2. Substantive due process 3. a prohibition against vague laws. 4. As the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. - Refers to the constitutional protections given to persons to ensure that laws are not unreasonably, arbitrary, or capricious. - When laws affect individual's lives, liberty, and property, due process requires that they have sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard. - Not applied to legislative decision-making.
Delegation of Power
Delegation of power in the context of planning, zoning, and other land use controls has two meanings: 1. The delegation of power to zone from the state to local government 2. The delegation of power from a legislative body to an administrative body at the local level.
Just Compensation
The 5th Amendment limits the government's power by requiring the government pay the fair market value of the property when it takes private property. - The owner is entitled to the value of the property to the owner, not the worth to the government, at the time of taking.
Fairly Debatable Rule
The presumption cannot be overcome if the evidence presented merely raises questions about which people could reasonably differ.
U.S. v Gettysburg Electric Railway Co
1896. The first significant legal case concerning historic preservation. - The US Supreme Court rules that the acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose.
Eminent Domain
The right of the state to take private property for public use. - Built upon the takings clause
Hadacheck v Sebastian
1915. The US Supreme Court upheld a municipal regulation (that governed the placement of land uses) as a reasonable exercise of police power - Led the way for land use zoning, as it implied (but did not state) that land use zoning is constitutional. - Involved issues of police power and zoning
Equal Protection
Part of the 14th Amendment. Refers to the right of all persons under like circumstances to enjoy equal protection and security in their life, their liberty, and their property. - In the land use context, it means that there must be a legitimate governmental purpose for the classifications and use restrictions that are applied to properties.
As Applied Challenge
When a property owner whose property is rezoned against her will, or a neighborhood that object to a rezoning, can bring suit in state or federal court claiming that the way the zoning ordinance was applied to a particular property was unconstitutional. - While the ordinances may be constitutional in general terms its application to the property under the specific facts of the case is unconstitutional.
Inverse Condemnation
Where government regulation has taken private property and has not exercised any formal eminent domain proceedings, a landowner may seek to recover the value of property taken by instituting this legal action.
Presumpiton of Constitutionality
When a land use regulation is challenged in court as not advancing a legitimate governmental purpose, the court usually will start its analysis of the regulation with a legal presumption that the regulation in question is constitutional. - The person challenging the regulation has the heavy burden of presenting evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the constitutionality of the regulation.
Supremacy Clause
There are certain minimum constitutional requirements that the states must observe. It places a floor of constitutional limitation below which local governments may not go in their imposition of land use controls. (Article VI)
Downzoning
The change in zoning classification to a less intensive use or lower density. - The reverse is called upzoning.
Nexus
Sufficient evidence to demonstrate a relationship between the burden imposed on the development and the need which the development is said to have created. - Comes out of the Nollan case
Police Power
The authority of each state to act to protect and promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of its people
Strict Scrutiny
Meaning that the court requires a precise showing by the proponents of the regulation that it is justified by a compelling governmental interest.
Judicial standards for Equal Protection review
Three tiers of standards: 1. Rational Relationship to a govt purpose. Presumption of consitutionality...burden of proof on challenger. 2. Strict scrutiny: When classification affects fundamental constitutional interest or when classification is suspect. Reverse preseumtion of constitutionality...burden of proof on local govt to show that reg advances a compelling govt interest. (Courts almost never find for the govt int his case). However, if govt can show that there is a legitimate, nonracial grounds for regulation, courts will not apply strict scrutiny. 3. Middle Tier: not often applied to land use.
A Facial Challenge
When a property owner believes that the zoning provisions themselves are inherently unconstitutional, they may challenge those zoning provisions in their entirety without reference to any specific case.
Vagueness
Requires courts to invalidate a regulation that is so unclear or ambiguous that a person of normal intelligence will not be able to comprehend what the regulation forbids or permits.
5th Amendment
- Includes the takings clause. - Also protects the right to due process.
Overbreadth Doctrine
Whether the regulation sweeps so broadly that it encompasses subject matter or behavior that is constitutionally protected. Has particular application to regulations challenged on first amendment grounds. - In applying this doctrine, the court examines the extent to which regulatory terms are vague.
Prior Restraint
Preventing or forbidding of speech unless there is prior approval by a government official. - Where a regulation is so unclear or ambiguous that a person does not whether a particular type of expression is permitted, there is a strong likelihood that unregulated expression will be deterred, which effectively causes a voluntary prior restraint.
Delegation of Power from Local Legislative Body to an Administrative Body
1. May not deligate legislative or policy-making power to administrative agencies. 2. May deligate substantial direction to such agencies, as long as delegation is accompanied by clearn-cut policy guidelines. - One of the principle constitutional doctrines involving planning law.
Eubank v. City of Richmond
1912 Supreme Court. Ruled that an ordinance violated the constitution because it deprived property owner of his property without due process and denied him the equal protection of the laws. - The ordinance enabled on set of property owners to control the rights of others. - Unreasonable exercise of the police power. - Involved issues of police power and zoning
Vested right
A right which the law recognizes as having accrued to an individual by virtue of certain circumstances and that as a matter of constitutional law cannot be arbitrarily taken away from the individual. EX: A government makes zoning changes that affect development projects in progress. The developer may argue that it has acquired a vested right in the prior zoning, or can use the theory of estoppel.
Vagueness Doctrine
It is derived from the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, specifically, procedural due process requirement of notice. The doctrine concerns the lack of clarity or certainty in the language of a regulation. -Requires courts to invalidate a regulation that is so unclear or ambiguous that a person of normal intelligence will not be able to comprehend what the regulation forbids or permits. -A regulation can be attacked on its face as a violation of the due process. Planners should be concerned with two problems which the vagueness doctrine addresses: 1. Whether the regulation is so vague that it does not give an individual of ordinary intelligence sufficient notice of what the law is that the individual has a reasonable opportunity to comply with the law. 2. Whether the regulation lacks sufficient explicit standards for its application by an administrative body and thereby impermissibly delegates to that the body the freedom to decide basic policy matters on an ad hoc and subjective basis.
Property Interests
A person's right to have the benefits of the particular type of interest the person holds in the property. - Application of zoning and other land use controls by local governments affects land, also known as real property, or more accurately, affects property interests. - The term property interests, when referring to real property or land, is not synonymous with title to property, since legal title is only one form of property interest. Ex: easement - the person has the right to use the land described within the easement area for access to the property.
Arbitrary and Capricious
When the evidence presented does not raise questions about which people could reasonably differ and indicates instead that the government's action was arbitrary, the court may invalidate the regulation on the ground that it is arbitrary and capricious. - This means that the regulation has no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Entitlement
When an individual has a right to particular property interest. A landowner is frequently said to have an entitlement to a property interest if his or her right has accrued or vested.
Expectancy Interest
When a property interest is merely hoped for or not yet vested.
Welch v. Swasey
1909. US Supreme court upholds municipal regulation of building heights. - This validated that height and construction standards are reasonable and appropriate excersise of the police power. - Involved issues of police power and zoning
Eminent Domain and Public Purpose
The government has the right to take ownership of property within its jurisdiction to fulfill a public purpose. - Cannot be exercised without just compensation to the affected landowner. - Attention is being paid to the idea of "public purpose." The use of eminent domain must be tied to a public purpose that is identified through a legitimate and thorough planning process. - Ex. Kelo case. Court upheld because the city had gone through an extensive redevelopment process within the public realm, and that process identified economic development as one of the public purposes
Takings Clause
5th Amendment - Private property shall not be taken without just compensation
Regulatory Taking
Indirect taking of land through regulation. Usuall occurs when: - A land use regulations does not relate to a legitmate state interest. - Assuming a legitimate state interest, the regulation does nto substantially advance that interest. - Places a disproportionate burden od securing a benefit upon a single landowner when it is more properly borne by the general community. - Entails a permanent physical occupation. - Reasonable investments were made prior to general notice of the regulatory program. - Deprives the landowner of all, or substantially all, beneficial use of the property, adn there are no off-setting reciprocal benefits. - Does any of the above either permanently or temporarily.
Judicial standards for procedural due process review
Were the following present? - unbiased decision. - adequate notice of hearing. - hearings with sworn witnesses and adequate opportunity to introduce evidence and cross-examin. - decision based on record supported by reasons and findings of fact.
Separation of Powers
Each branch of government must be limited to the powers appropriate to its functions. - The terms has come to encompass the concept that each branch is also dependent on the others to exercise their respective functions and that at least two branches of government must cooperate before governmental choices affecting individual rights can be put into effect.
Development Exaction
A contribution requirement in the form of land or money, which government imposes on new development as a condition of development approval, usually in order to accommodate the need for capital facilities and services created by the new development. - One form of regulation which raises taking issues. - Must show a rational nexus, and be be proportional to the potential impacts of the proposed development.
Nuisance
The use of one's property in a manner than seriously interferes with another's use or enjoyment of his or her property (a private nuisance) or is injurious to the community at large (a public nuisance). - Unlike trespass to land, nuisance does not require a physical invasion of others property. -Zoning was originally based on concepts of nuisance and consisted of a comprehensive scheme for separating incompatible land uses into mapped zones or districts.
Section 2
(50 cards)
Two changes in land use control practices that have eroded the willingness of the courts to accept a zoning ordinance without reference to a general plan
1. The increasing use of flexible land use controls, such as floating zones, PUDs, large-lot zoning, wait and see attitude to where things would developed. 2. The increasing use of growth management programs (traditional land use control systems have been concered with location and character of growth, but in the 1970s a new dimension was added: timing. It no longer assumed growth was good"
Fasano v Board of County Commissioners of Washington County
1973. Oregon Supreme Court rules that all zoning and rezoning must be consistent with general plans. - How to prove that the regulation is not consistent with the state's constitution, zoning enabling legislation, or case law. - Involved issues of police power and zoning
Berman v. Parker
1954. US Supreme Court upholds right of Washington DC Redevelopment Land Agency to condemn properties that are unsightly, though non-deteriorated, if required to achieve objects of duly established area redevelopment plans. - Involved issues of eminent domain
City of Renton v Playtime Theaters, Inc
1986. Supreme Court allowed a zoning ordinance limiting sexually-oriented businesses to 5% of the municipal land area to stand based on a study conducted on the negative effects of the business type on surrounding areas. -Involved first amendment issues
NYC Housing Authority v Muller
1936. NY Court of Appeals. Property cannot, without the owner's consent, be devoted to the private use of another, even where there is an incidental or colorable benefit to public. - In this case, however, in a matter of far reaching public concern, the City sought to take the defendant's property and to administer it as part of a project conceived and to be carried out in its owner interest and for its own protection. That constituted a public benefit purpose and therefore, a public use. - Involved issues of eminent domain and takings
Golden v Planning Board of Ramapo, NY
1972. New York Court of Appeals decision. - Zoning ordinance that made development permits contingent of availability of public utilities, road access, drainage, parks, etc - Allows the use of performance criteria as a means of slowing community growth. - Also upheld as legitimate public goals of concurrency and phased growth. - Involved issues of police power
Public Trust Doctrine
Holds that government has an obligation to make certain resources available for the enjoyment of all citizens. Most often applies to providing public access to navigable waterways.
Township of Franklin v Tubwell
1936. US Court of Appeals. Ruled that the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act on which the Greenbelt program was based was invalid. - The federal govt had no constitutional authority to use its power of eminent domain in states for housing purposes.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v County of Las Angeles
1987. Supreme Court finds that even a temporary taking (because the county remanded the ordinance) that prevents reasonable use of private land, requires compensation. - However, the court rejected the concept that the sole remdy for a taking is payment of the full value of the property. -Involved issues of eminent domain and takings
Brett v Building Commission of Brookline
1924. Courts upheld zoning in which single-family detached residences were the only type of residence permitted. - Based on the protection of public health through reduced danger of fire and increased light and air, and on an inability to find that such controls bear no conceivable relationship to the protection of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. - Involved issues of police power and zoning
Common Law
Comes from the traditions of English law that are hundreds of years old. Tradition that a person cannot use land in ways that bring harm to neighbors. It contributed significantly to origins of private property rights in the US. Another example is the Public Trust Doctrine.
Central Hudson v Public Service Commission
1980. Supreme Court finds that for a regulation involving first amendment rights to survive, it must: 1. advance a compelling state interest; 2. allow a reasonable alternative means of communication; 3. is as narrowly defined as possible; and 4. is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.
Village of Belle Terre v Boraas
1974. Supreme Court rules that limiting residents of housing units to related individuals was a legitimate use of police power, eliminating many fundamental civil rights challenges to local regulations. - Involved issues of police power and zoning
Members of City Council v Taxpayers of Vincent
Supreme Court upheld a regulation that prohibited the attaching of signs to utility poles. The Court found that the regulation met all tests mentioned under Central Hudson. -Involved first amendment issues
Kelo v City of New Haven
2005. Upholds decades-old practice of utilizing urban redevelopment and eminent domain for economic development purposes when such actions are backed by a redevelopment plan that underwent a full plan development process.
Basic Legal Framework for Environmental and Land Use Laws
5th, 10th, and 14th amendments
Calvert Cliff Coordinating Committee v US Atomic Energy Commission
1971. Supreme Court found that an approval for a nuclear power plant was not properly granted because the requirements of NEPA were not followed. - Solidified the place of NEPA in the development arena.
Metromedia v City of San Diego
1981. Supreme Court holds that neither commercial nor non-commercial speech can be favored over the other. - The ordinance was overturned because it effectively banned non-commercial signs. -Involved first amendment issues
Legal Pecking Order
Constitutional law cased (esp by US Supreme Court) have the most clout. - Legislative law supersedes administrative law. - Federal laws have greater authority than state or local laws. - State laws may be more protective of the environment than federal laws, and local laws more protective than state laws, provided that there is no violation of the constitution
Judicial Law
Case law. Created through legal rulings on cases brought before a court. A judge is asked to interpret how the constitution and exiting laws and regulations apply to a particular situation. - Has been important in interpreting the 5th, 10th, and 14th Amendments.
Sam Remo Hotel v San Francisco
2005. Supreme Court rules that a takings dispute resolved at the state level cannot be relitigated at the federal level.
Quasi-Judicial Rulings
Also interpret the law based on facts, but the ruling is made by a publically appointed board or elected officials, not by a judge. Make the ruling on the basis of a record of facts following a hearing. Such a ruling usual applies to a single land owner or single property where the applicant has requires an exemption from a land use regulation. Officials must observe due process by giving proper notice of a public hearing and make written findings of fact to support their decision.
14th Amendment
1. Requires due process, which means that: a. person has a right to a fair and speedy trial (governments cant delay development by dragging deliberations); and b. Governments must also follow correct procedures, including notice of public hearings and meetings. 2. Includes the Equal Protection Clause - governments must treat all citizens in like situated properties similarly (EX. spot zoning should be illegal act if one property owner is favored). 3. Guarantees a persons right to travel under the equal protection clause. A municipality cannot prevent a person from moving into that justification by banning new residential construction
Bundle of Property Rights
Creation of private property was not meant to give landowners total control, since municipalities retain sovereignty and can impose restriction of how land may be used. - Instead, a property landowners owns a bundle of rights to a property. - Any single right may be separated from the bundle and sold or given away.
How to Prove that a Regulation Constitutes a Taking
1. Regulation is not based on a public nuisance statute and causes the property to lose all economic value (Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Commission). 2. If it does not substantially advance a legit state interest. 3. If it does not involve an exaction, then it will be found to constitute a taking, unless it passes the "ad hoc factual inquiry" (imposed by Penn Central). 4. If it involves an exaction, it will be found to constitute a taking unless it passes both the rational nexus test (Nollan) and the rough proportionality test (Dolan). Logical connection between the govt action and its goal.
Dolan v City of Tigard
1994. Supreme Court rules that a jurisdiction must show that there is a "rough proportionality" between the adverse impacts of a proposed development and the exactions it wishes to impose on the developer. - In this case, the court criticized the city for not explainging why a greenway/floodplain was allowed. Say would, not could. -Involved issues of exactions
James v. Valtierra
1971 Supreme Court upheld an amendment to the California constitution mandating a referendum on all housing projects because an intent to racially discriminate could not be found.
10th Amendment
Allows states to use their police power to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and morals. - Each state has then delegated this power to local governments. - States exercise police power to impose safety standards, and local governments exercise it when they adopt zoning and other regulations over the use of privately held land.
Basic Legal Framework for the control of private development in the US
Was created in the 1920s. 1. Emphasized control and protection, by ordinance, of the physical character of the new middle income residential areas constructed at the perimeter of the city. 2. Maintenance of the status quo in the central city. 3. Fulfullment of the interests of businss and industry, which took the form of extensive over-zoning for commerical and industrial uses.
Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp
1932. Court ruled that an owner cannot make use of his property if it creates a material annoyance to his neighbor or if his neighbors property or life is materially lessened by the use. - Nuisance law.
Home Rule States
States that have granted their local governments the authority to adopt comprehensive plans and land use and environmental regulations. In states without home rule, state legislature must pass enabling legislation for local govts to use certain practices, such as purchase of development rights.
How to Prove that a Regulation Violates the First Amendment
If the regulation is not content-neutral, then it will be subject to the "strict scrutiny" test (ie does the reg further a compelling state interest). - If the regulation is content neutral, then it will be subject to the "intermediate scrutiny" test (ie does the regulation advance a legitimate state interest?). - Courts will strike down the regulation unless it: 1. allows a reasonable alternative means of communication; 2. is as narrowly defined as possible; and 3. Is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.
Mt Laurel II
1983. New Jersey Supreme Court rules that all 567 municipalities in the state must build their "fair share" of affordable housing. - A precedent-setting blow against racial segregation. - Gave teeth to Mt Laurel I decision.
Cohen v Des Planes
Supreme Court ruled that zoning cannot be used to grant religious institutions advantages over other commercial ventures.
Southern Burlington Co. NAACP v. Township of Mt Laurel (Mt Laurel I)
1975 New Jersey Supreme Court. Held that community in growing areas in the way of urban expansion must take their fair share of regional growth (i.e. low- and moderate-income housing needs). - Established the principle that zoning restrictions that serve to keep out poor and middle class families violate state constitution.
Four Rules Identifying Situations that Amount to a Taking
1. Where the landowner has been denied "all economically viable use" of the land (aka Fundamental Fairness)(also, not the "profitable use" of the property). 2. Where the regulation forced the landowner to allow someone else to enter onto the property. 3. Where the regulation imposes burdens or costs on the landowner that do not bear a "reasonable relationship" to the impacts of the project on the community. 4. Where govt can equally accomplish the valid public purpose through regulation or through the a requirement of dedicating property, govt should use the less intrusive regulation.
Sonoma v Petaluma
1975. 4th Circuit finds that quotas on the annual number of building permits issues was a constitutional use of the police power. - It does not violate the right to travel - Involved issues of growth management
Penn Central's Ad Hoc Factual Inquiry
Consists of: 1. Weighing the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, and especially on his investment backed expectations. 2. Weighing the character of the regulation. 3. Determining whether or not the regulation sufficiently deprives one of property rights.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty
1926. US Supreme Court upheld the legality of zoning as valid exercise of police power (10th Amendment) - Involved issues of police power and zoning
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center
1985. US Supreme Court ruled that an ordinance that treats different groups unequally, but does not involve a fundamental right or group that gained protection under Village of Arlington Heights (1977) merely needs to pass a rational basis test. This ordinance failed the rational basis test. -Involved equal protection issues
Penn Central Transportation Co v. City of New York
1978. Supreme Court upholds New York City's Landmark Preservation Law as applied to Grand Central Terminal. - In this landmark decision, the Court found that barring some development of air rights was not a taking when the interior of the property could be put to lucrative use, and it did not deny all economic benefit to the property. - Involved issues of eminent domains and takings
Jones v Alfred H Mayer Co
1966. Supreme Courty ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1966 prohibited racial discrimination in all housing in the US.
Nollan v California Coastal Commission
1987. Supreme Court finds that land-use restrictions, to be valid, it must be directly tied to a specific injury and public purpose (Nexus). -Involved issues of exactions
Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp
1982. - Supreme Court ruled that a statute was invalide under the 5th Amendment because it authorized a taking (physical occupation of the cable boxes) without compensation. - Confirms that a physical invasion of a property is a taking - Involved issues of police power and zoning
Agins v City of Tiburon
1980 Supreme Court. Establishes a two-part test...a land use regulations amounts to a taking if it: 1. Eliminates economically viable use of private property; or 2. Does not substantially advance a legitimate government purpose. - Makes clear that a regulation that is not reasonably related to the police power and causes a property to lose all economic value constitutes a taking. - Involved issues of police power and zoning
Village of Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Development
1977. Equal protection case. Supreme Court found that a regulation effectively denying housing to people based on race, immigration status, or national origin was unconstitutional. - Further, a regulation effectively denying housing to people based on gender or illegitimacy must substantially advance a legitimate state interest and be passed or enforced with intent to discriminate. - Involved issues of police power and zoning
Administrative Law
Whenever statutory law sets up a government program, government agencies need to adopt rules and regulations to implement the statute.
Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council
1992. Supreme Court limits local and states ability to restrict private property without compensation. - The decision is thought to again narrow the takings requiring compensation to cases when all use of the property is denied. -Involved issues of eminent domain and takings
San Diego Gas and Electric Co v. City of San Diego
1981 Supreme Court decision that suggested that an expansion of govt liability might be in store. - Government might be held liable for money damages for an unconstitutional temporary takings caused by excessive land use regulation.
Brown v Board of Education
1954. Supreme Court upholds school integration.
Section 3
(4 cards)