What was a landmark case regarding the practice of zoning and property rights, Arizona v. United States or Dolan v. City of Tigard ?
2fe40eef60df44549d4661c9627b6b2b
Dolan v. City of Tigard Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) , more commonly Dolan v. Tigard, was a United States Supreme Court case. It was a landmark case regarding the practice of zoning and property rights, and served to establish limits on the ability of cities and other government agencies, to use zoning and land-use regulations to compel property owners to make unrelated public improvements.
4059541509262dc7e0cdceafe5fff952
Arizona v. United States Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) , was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law, but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.
4f158ff50cf8e05cbfa7a8bb46031b95
Byram v. United States Byram v. United States, 705 F.2d 1418 (5th Cir. 1983) is a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that helps determine when a sale of land will result in a capital gain for purpose of the U.S. Federal income tax.
86d325a89ff199168f78b74e9c95be17
Tulee v. Washington Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 (1942) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Washington statute prescribing license fees for fishing is invalid as applied to a Yakima Indian convicted on a charge of catching salmon with a net without first having obtained a license, in view of Treaty with Yakima Indians securing to them the exclusive right of taking fish in all streams running through or bordering reservation and right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of Washington.
5bf536e358d9a83a536d70898d71affc
Baker v. Morton Baker v. Morton, 79 U.S. 150 (1870) , was the first "serious" court case to come out of Omaha, Nebraska Territory, prior to statehood. In the trial a claim jumper fought against local land barons to stake out a homestead in the area that was to become the city of Omaha. The case was important for establishing homesteaders rights and ensuring the future growth of Omaha would benefit everyone, not only wealthy landowners.
071c212eec17475fc3fe40f1bf2b997a
Contract zoning Contract zoning in the United States, also referred to as "zoning by contract", "rezoning by contract", or "rezoning subject to conditions" is a form of land use regulation in which a local zoning authority accommodates a private interest by rezoning a district or a parcel of land within that district to a zoning classification with fewer restrictions based on an agreement that the property owner abide by certain conditions or limitations imposed by the zoning authority for that parcel.
8a56a5c16bbbfde9a15a886d751a3834
United States v. Garcia United States v. Garcia was a 2007 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case regarding the use of GPS devices. The court ruled that a placing a GPS tracking device a personal vehicle without a warrant did not violate a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights.
e309a8945bc8cb963fcc8838aad8f1a4
Washington v. Davis Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) was a United States Supreme Court case that established that laws that have a racially-discriminatory effect but were not adopted to advance a racially-discriminatory purpose are valid, under the US Constitution.
646f5221052ebd38ed1f1ed03124e0d0
Anderson v. Jackson Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2009) was a class action lawsuit seeking injunctive relief to prevent the demolition of four New Orleans public housing developments that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina. The suit alleged that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and state and city housing agencies were in violation of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act), the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
46b845df7f94292038efcbef2d60a95c
Ware &amp; Leland v. Mobile County Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 (1908) , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that contracts for the sales of cotton for future delivery that do not oblige interstate shipments are not subjects of interstate commerce. The Court also held that a state tax on persons engaged in buying and selling cotton for future delivery was not a regulation of interstate commerce, and that the imposition of the tax was not beyond the power of the state.
e4491182c4ba7069c75c5823ec8288cf
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) , more commonly Euclid v. Ambler, was a United States Supreme Court landmark case argued in 1926. It was the first significant case regarding the relatively new practice of zoning, and served to substantially bolster zoning ordinances in towns nationwide in the United States and in other countries of the world including Canada.
f3929da736436fbfdfe88c23f6218644
Bryan v. Kennett Bryan v. Kennett, 113 U.S. 179 (1885), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the treaty providing for the Louisiana Purchase, the United States would recognize property interests granted by the previous sovereign governments prior to the Purchase, even if the grant had been inchoate or incomplete. The case involved a disputed title to land in the U.S. state of Missouri, which had previously been under the control of Spain and France before being acquired by the United States. In the late 1700s, the government of Spain had made a possibly incomplete grant of the land to a U.S. citizen, Moses Austin. Spain then lost control of the land to France in 1800, who in turn sold it to the United States. A question later arose as to whether Austin had received sufficient property rights from Spain to allow him to mortgage his land in 1818, or whether necessary rights had somehow passed back to the United States government, making the mortgage invalid and voiding subsequent land transfers that occurred pursuant to Austin's defaulting on the mortgage. Under the Court's holding, the incomplete grant to Austin was valid and sufficient to permit the mortgage.
b5dacaba43ee44307e7dd94b0d5bcf51
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
33e7794d028d8313b441d234f12e70dc
Helvering v. Bruun Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461 (1940) , was an income tax case before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is notable (and thus appears frequently in law school casebooks) for the following holding:
12382da34f89d237f6f2b6ece2aa74b9
Baker v. Carr Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that decided that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide redistricting cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that redistricting of legislative districts is a "political question", and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.
ae72f4e631e93094ee1e8ae62b65fade
Tison v. Arizona Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court qualified the rule it set forth in "Enmund v. Florida" (1982). Just as in "Enmund", the "Tison" Court applied the proportionality principle to conclude that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for a felony murderer who was a major participant in the underlying felony and exhibited a reckless indifference to human life.
1dae21077e9015719c2ba598e0cb3f09
Florida v. Riley Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) , was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.
744bcd88c9b5001836ce481f2befa182
One, Inc. v. Olesen One, Inc. v. Olesen 355 U.S. 371 (January 13, 1958) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality.
b9f4769fa885c023cfb50aaa8d8295b2
Public Law 280 Public Law 280 (Pub.L. 83–280 , August 15, 1953, codified as  /1162 § 1162  ,  /1360 § 1360  , and ) is a federal law of the United States establishing "a method whereby States may assume jurisdiction over reservation Indians," as stated in "McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission". 411 U.S. 164, 177 (1973).
a1116b3a4a1f45000dd2f21da42b8c3c
Downes v. Bidwell Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) , was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. This issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The resulting decision narrowly held that the Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".
b09ee26fa02bebf4b1eb3a7b421582d7
City of Richmond v. United States City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975), was a case that upheld Richmond, Virginia's annexation of land from surrounding counties.
a57c88e0d7be07837c4798f424b52d38
Heath v. Alabama Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty" (the concept that the United States and each state possess sovereignty – a consequence of federalism), the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which he had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.