Select a Chapter to start the court case quiz.
Court case: Horne v. Department of Agriculture
Breyer argues that the case
is moot.
is a political question.
has no state interest.
should be remanded.
The government had no idea how much the fair market value was for the raisins.
Court case: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
The Court admits that a land-use regulation is not a taking if
the state says it is not a taking.
there is no legitimate state interest.
there is a legitimate state interest.
none of these
Court case: Kelo v. City of New London
It is possible to distinguish economic development from other public purposes.
Court case: United States v. Causby
The U.S. conceded at oral argument that the flights made the land uninhabitable.
In dissent, Sotomayor argues there is no taking per se.
Court case: Berman v. Parker
The rights of the owners were satisfied when they received just compensation.
Court case: Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York
The Court has upheld regulations when
health, safety, and morals would be promoted.
regulations have destroyed property interests – such as zoning laws.
both health, safety, and morals would be promoted and regulations have destroyed property interests – such as zoning laws.
neither health, safety, and morals would be promoted and regulations have destroyed property interests – such as zoning laws.
For the dissenters, the commission could have simply
denied the Nollan’s permit request.
ignored the Nollan’s permit request.
taken the entire property without compensation.
Based on precedent the Court defines public interest broadly.
Court case: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Compensable regulation includes
compelling property owners to suffer physical invasion of privacy.
To determine if a taking took place, the Court looks to the action’s effect on a parcel as a whole.
In dissent, Kennedy would use the strict scrutiny test.
Penn central argues this must be a taking because
there is a major impact on the property.
it applies to many structures in New York.
it is simply unfair.
The Court finds that the law does not interfere at all with the functioning and use of the terminal.
Blackmun, in dissent, believes the Court’s ruling is much too sweeping.
Court case: Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
The government must take the property and use it for a taking to occur.
Once an object is within the authority of the Congress
eminent domain is not necessary.
eminent domain is may be exercised.
states have no power to take the property.
The Court says it public law jurisprudence
favors rigid formulas.
favors broad latitude for determining public need.
focuses on the 14th Amendment.
Just compensation is not always mandatory when property is appropriated.
The Court has developed a set formula for determine when public action that causes economic injuries must be compensated.
The dissenters believe this was not a reasonable exercise of state police power.
Court precedent indicates that government can proscribe harmful uses of private land without compensation.
The landowner does not own any of the air space above his land.
When it comes to the Court reviewing a legislature
it will not substitute its judgement for the legislatures.
it will substitute its judgement for the legislature’s when it is appropriate.
For the Court, the flights here are
the taker’s loss.
the owner’s loss.
the taker’s gain.
the owner’s gain.
Generally, flights over private lands are not a taking unless they are low and frequent.
To win the case for the Court
South Carolina must show a vested interest.
South Carolina must should a rational basis.
South Carolina must do more than show Lucas’ interests are against the public interest.
all of these
The problem with the flights here are that
they drop water on the land.
they land on the owner’s property.
the noise makes the land unusable.
The government argued that this is not a taking because
the growers voluntarily participated in the raisin market.
the growers had no interest in the market.
the growers could have just planted another crop.
The police powers over municipal affairs are wide in scope.
The Court says that the right to exclude others is essential for something to be private property.
Despite the noxious use doctrine, compensation must be made for regulatory takings.
In dissent, Thomas would
remand the case.
rule for the state.
return to the original understanding of the public use doctrine.
The Court relies heavily on Berman in this case.
For the Court, if the city wants to put in an easement, it must pay for it.
