Laserfiche WebLink
Top Cases Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />facilities. <br /> <br />g. Just "/, ;*!arinette CotJnty, 201 N.W.2d 761 (.Wis. 1972). <br />Significantly integrated public trust theories into a modern, regulatory scheme. <br /> <br />Shoreland zoning ordinance providing for the creation of conservancy, recreational, and <br />general purpose districts along navigable streams and other bodies of water upheld as <br />constitutional. A landowner has no absolute and unlimited right to change ~.he essential <br />natural character of his land so as to ute it for a purpose for which it was unsuited in its <br />natural state and which injures the rights of others, <br /> <br />10. Fasano v, Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, S07 P.2d 23 (Or. <br />1973) <br />Required zoning to be consistent with comprehensive plans and recognized that rezonings <br />may be quasi-judicial as well as legislative. <br /> <br />Because rezoning to permit a large mobile home PUD determined the rights of only a few <br />landowners, the action was adjudicatop/ rather than legislative in character and the <br />presumption of validity normally afforded local legislative acts did not apply. In such cases, <br />the burden of justifying the rezoning falls on the party seeking the change, who must show <br />that the change will be in accordance with the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />11. Young /. American [',liniTheaters, inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976) <br />Opened up the possibility to control pornography via land use. <br /> <br />Special requirements applicable to adult theatres and bookstores upheld. <br /> <br />12. Viiiage o1: Arfington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 <br />(1977) <br />Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially <br />disproportionate impacts, <br /> <br />The disproportionate racial impact of the village's refusal to grant rezoning necessary to <br />allow construction of Iow-income housing is not sufficient to prove violation of the Equal <br />Protection Clause, absent evidence of racially discriminator,/ intent. <br /> <br />13. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) <br />Created modern Endangered Species Act law (protecting the snail darer). <br /> <br />U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision held that the Endangered Species Act of !973 <br />prohibits ~he completion and operation of the Te!lico Dam. <br /> <br />i4. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) <br />introduced a means-end balancing test for regulatory takings and validated historic <br />preservation controls, <br /> <br />Restrictions on the development of the Grand Central Terminal bid not amount to a taking <br />of property, since Penn Central could transfer the development rights to the other <br />properties and a reasonable return on the property was allowed, the U.S. Supreme Court <br />ruled. <br /> <br />15. :i: ,'~g~r,':' /. Cit'/ oi: Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) <br />Useo an aiternadve takings test to the Penn Central test. <br /> <br />U.S. Supreme Court rules that the open space zoning ordinance of the city 3f Tiburon, <br />California, does not result in a taking of property without payment of,lust compensation. <br /> <br />16..d:.~!::.3~secia, !nc. v. C;t'./ of San Die,z?, 453 U.S. ago (1981) <br />Extended :cmmercial speech to aesthetic regulation. <br /> <br />Ordinance that substantially restricted both commercial and noncommerciai off-site <br />billboards as 'Nell as noncommercial on-site billboards he!d unconstitutional under the F;rst <br />Amendment. <br /> <br />i7. _::;'y::c '/ Yele~rcPapt~,r t'4anhattan CA:v LarD., 458 U.S, 4i9 (1982) <br /> <br /> 117 <br />i~ttp:,','www.planning.org./25ar, niversary/cases.htm i 0i25~2004 <br /> <br /> <br />