100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
AICP Exam - Law Cases Study Guide Solutions $12.49   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Prep Tests
  4.  
  5. Prep Tests

Exam (elaborations)

AICP Exam - Law Cases Study Guide Solutions
 2 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Prep Tests
  • Institution
  • Prep Tests

AICP Exam - Law Cases Study Guide Solutions Zoning Cases (Summary) - ANSWER-Welch v. Swasey; (1909) regulate building height. Eubank v. City of Richmond; (1912) first approved the use of setback regulations Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) regulation of the location of land uses. Village of Eucli...

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 12  pages

Document information

  • November 10, 2024
  • 12
  • 2024/2025
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers

Subjects

  • aicp exam law cases study guide solutions

Written for

  • Prep Tests
  • Prep Tests

Seller

avatar-seller
OliviaWest

Reviews received

Content preview

Copyright © KAYLIN 2024/2025 ACADEMIC YEAR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




AICP Exam - Law Cases Study Guide

Solutions


Zoning Cases (Summary) - ANSWER✔✔-Welch v. Swasey; (1909) regulate building height.




Eubank v. City of Richmond; (1912) first approved the use of setback regulations




Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) regulation of the location of land uses.




Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance,

the zoning ordinance should be upheld. Alfred Bettman




Nectow v. City of Cambridge;(1928)


rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance. no valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the

health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public).


Before Comprehensive Zoning - ANSWER✔✔-Before comprehensive zoning, regulation of land use was

based on nuisance laws. Under common law,


persons with real property are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their land. If this enjoyment is

interrupted, for example through noise, pollution or odor, the affected party can claim a nuisance.

Copyright ©Stuvia International BV 2010-2024 Page 1/12

, Copyright © KAYLIN 2024/2025 ACADEMIC YEAR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909) - ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - The Court established the right of

municipalities to regulate building height. An act in 1905 in Massachusetts enabled the limitation of

building heights and the court held that height discrimination is based on reasonable grounds, is a

proper exercise of the police power of the state, and does not violate the equal protection and due

process clauses of the 14th Amendment.


Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912) - ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - The state had a

statute authorizing cities and towns, among other things, 'to make regulations concerning the building of

houses in the city or town, and in their discretion, . . . in particular districts or along particular streets, to

prescribe and establish building lines, or to require property owners in certain localities or districts to

leave a certain percentage of lots free from buildings and to regulate the height of buildings.' The court

held that the ordinance was a valid use of police power.


Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915) - ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - The Court first

approved the regulation of the location of land uses. The court found that a zoning ordinance in Los

Angeles that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th

Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.


Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926) - ANSWER✔✔-ZONING CASE - The

Court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning

ordinance should be upheld. The key question before the court was whether the Village of Euclid's

zoning ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the

constitution. The key outcome of the court was that it upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police

power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.




Copyright ©Stuvia International BV 2010-2024 Page 2/12

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller OliviaWest. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $12.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

76799 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$12.49
  • (0)
  Add to cart