Zoning
Variety of Test
Family
Housing
Random
100

Established the constitutionality of zoning.


Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty

100

This case established the "Three Prong Test".

Penn Central Transportation v. New York City

100

Cities can regulate how many unrelated people live together.

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas

100

Established zoning by race not legal.

Buchanan V. Warley

100

The 4 Amendments in land use planning

1st, 5th, 10th, and 14th

200

Zoning as a whole must be valid.

Zoning as applied must be valid.

Nectow v. City of Cambridge

200

Restriction for beach access does not solve the problem stated.

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

200

Cities cannot regulate family.

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

200

Established third parties can sue surrounding an affordable housing case.

Village of Arlington Heights v. (MHDC) Metropolitan Housing Development Corp

200

Can there be an unconstitutional taking?

No

300

Pennsylvania Coal Company Vs. Mahon

Actually, this is contract law!

300

Must be roughly proportional.

Dolan v. City of Tigard

300

Used quasi-suspect class to overturn zoning law.

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

300

Can regulate religious place if it does not show an integral part of relgion.

Ohio Congregation Jehova v City of Lakewood

300
Established temporary takings and has a really long name.

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale vs Los Angeles County

400

Cities must zone for uses if it wants to regulate that usage.

Eves v. Zoning Board of Adjustments of Lower Gwyndd Township

400

Three prong test used for the "right to exclude".

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation

400

Takings can be done to correct market failures.

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

400

Time and place free speech can be regulated in an anti-skid row case.

Young v. American Mini Theatres

500

Regulatory taking of economic use requires compensation.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission

500

Cities cannot regulate the content of speech in regards to bill boards.

Metromedia Inc. v. City of San Diego

M
e
n
u