Land uses may be regulated to promote public welfare.
Uintah Mountain RTC, LLC v. Duchesne County
Decision to grant or deny a conditional use application must be based upon substantial evidence; consent of neighbors may not be a requirement for a conditional use permit.
Tooele Associates, LP v. Tooele City
Validity of inspection fees.
Smith Investment Company v. Sandy City
Validity of zoning ordinances.
Hatch v. Boulder Town
Authority to enact zoning ordinances.
Pacific West Communities, Inc. v. City of Grantsville
Utah Court of Appeals 2009UT App 291, 221 P.3d 280Claims not raised before a trial court may not be raised before an appellate court. A court’s review of a local government’s land use decision is specifically limited to the record provided by the local government. A reviewing court may not accept or consider any evidence outside of the record. A court’s …
Kelo v. City of New London
The concept of “public purpose” is defined broadly. The use of eminent domain by private parties to carry out a city-approved development plan to promote economic development was not unconstitutional.
Berman v. Parker (US Supreme Court 1954)
The 5th Amendment’s “Public Use” clause includes a “public purpose” for which Congress could properly exercise its police powers. Acquiring property for redevelopment project for aesthetic improvement was constitutional.
Hawai’i Housing Authority v. Midkiff
The “Public Use” requirement is coterminous with the scope of a sovereign’s police powers. The Government itself does not have to use the property. Hawaii statute that permitted condemnation of residential tracts to transfer ownership to existing lessees to reduce concentration of land ownership served a legitimate public purpose and was not a purely private taking.
