Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1926)
Upheld that zoning is a form of nuisance control and reasonable use of police power.
Established the concept of “public welfare”
Kelo v. New London (2005)
Upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. “The Legend of the Little Pink House” - sparked legislation changes across the US
Berman v. Parker (1954)
Court ruled “blighted” private property may be taken for aesthetic and redevelopment purposes, not just for a public use
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)
Extractions (takings) must demonstrate an “essential nexus” to a legitimate state interest. When rebuilding home - permit condition required an easement to be given to the State due to a view of the beach from the road, which did not exist. 5th Amendment - due process
Dolan v. City of Tigard (1997)
Extractions must also be “rough proportionality” between the extraction and its impact on the property, even if essential nexus (Nolan) is proven. In city permit, they wanted 20% of the property for a proposed bike path and drainage. Used in impact fees.
Penn Central Transportation Co v. City of New York (1978)
Landmarks Preservation Law applied to protect Grand Central Station. Transfer Development Rights (TDR) for air rights above the station. Determined not a “taking” since TDR can be used at equivalent valued areas.
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922)
Establishes concept of a “regulatory taking”. Penn Coal’s property rights were “taken” by the State with the new regulation - hence compensation must be paid
Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)
Los Angeles - No right to maintain a public nuisance & not compensate for abatement; exercise of City’s police powers (early zoning case)
Mugler v. Kansas (1887)
Police power vs. eminent domain - utilizing police power to prohibit the use of a property to protect public health and safety (no alcohol sales) is not a “taking” and no compensation required
Golden v. Town of Ramapo (1972)
Rapidly growing town requires developers to assist in funds for essential services and facilities their population would require
Metromedia Inc v. City of San Diego (1981)
Tried to ban all off-site billboards/advertising signs for aesthetics and driver safety. Determined this limited commercial free speech.
Abusive eminent domain
improper exercise of the government’s power to take private property for private gain rather than public use
Construction Association v. City of Petaluma (1975)
Upheld the right to preserve its small town character thru limited building permit issuances
Home Builders vs. City of Livermore (1976)
Prohibited the issuance of new residential building permits until school, sewage disposal, and water-supply facilities complied with specified standards
Dillon’s Rule
Municipal governments has no powers except those expressly delegated by the State or necessarily implied
1st Amendment
Freedom of religion, speech, of the press, and to peacefully assemble
5th Amendment
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
10th Amendment
Federal power is limited to the US Constitution; all other powers are reserved to the States, or to the people **gives police power to the States
14th Amendment
Amendments 1-10 did not apply to the States. 14th amendment - above amendments apply to the States
Police Power
power of the STATE government to protect public health, safety, and welfare
Munn v. Illinois (1876)
regulation of business does not violate 14th Amendment (railroad hauling rates) when it impacts the public good
Home Rule
Municipal government has all powers unless expressly restricted by the State
Federalism
sharing of power between the national and state governments
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
Development setback line was changed, making the owned Lucas parcels as undevelopable and “denied all economic use”. State had to buy the lots
