Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 6 P24 docx

and negative environmental effects of the
proposed undertaking and alternatives. The
EIS must also examine the effect of not
implementing the proposed action. This “no-
action” alternative may result in the agency’s
continuing to use existing approaches. Although
NEPA requires agencies to consider the envi-
ronmental consequences of their actions, it does
not force them to take the most environmen-
tally sound alternative, nor does it dictate that
they pursue the least expensive option.
The effect of environmental policies on land
use has been substantial. State governments
followed the lead of the federal government
and passed statutes that create water and air
pollution co ntrol agencies. Some states require
an EIS, and a number have comprehensive
legislation.
Land-Use Conflicts
Government and judicial bodies usually attempt
to make land-use policies responsive to emerg-
ing concerns and developing needs. Conflicts
result from situations in which localities
attempt to block or ignore those needs, or from
situations in which the response is challenged as
an overextension of the police power. The
complexity of urban problems and the growth
of urban areas place constant tension on the
land-use process.
Urban land-use is not all that causes
tension between the government and land-

owners. Decisions to set aside undeveloped or
rural land for governmental use causes contro-
versy as well. One example of this practice
was the decision by the federal government in
2002 to set aside Yucca Mountain, in Nevada,
for storing all U.S. nuclear waste. Various
landowners and Native American tribes, as well
as the state of Nevada, filed lawsuits attempting
to stop this use of Yucca Mountain. In March
2009, the Obama Administration announced
its intention to abandon f ederal plans for
Yucca Mountain. With the population of states
such as Nevada gro wing rapidly, resulting in a
decrease of available land, these wrangles over
land use are anticipated to become more
frequent.
FURTHER READINGS
Juergensmeyer, Julian Conrad, et al. 2003. Land Use
Planning and Development Regulation Law. St. Paul,
Minn.: West.
Main, Carla. 2007.Bulldozed: ‘Kelo,’ Eminent Domain and the
American Lust for Land.New York: Encounter Books.
Nolon, John, and Salkin, Patricia. 2006. Land Use in a
Nutshell. 5th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson West.
CROSS REFERENCES
Adjoining Landowners; Endangered Species Act; Environ-
mental Protection Agency; Fish and Fishing; Hunting;
Pollution; Solid Wastes, Hazardous Substances, and Toxic
Pollutants; Water Rights.
v

LANDIS, KENESAW MOUNTAIN
Kenesaw Mountain Landis is remembered by
some as the trust-busting federal judge who
in 1907 imposed a whopping fine against
millionaire John D. Rockefeller ’s Standard Oil.
More often, sports fans remember Landis as
the first and, arguably, most powerful commis-
sioner of U.S. baseball.
Landis earned a reputation as a stern, highly
principled baseball commissio ner who ran a
tight ship and disapproved of gambling. He
antagonized many t eam owners with his
▼▼
▼▼
Kenesaw Mountain Landis 1866–1944
18501850
19001900
19251925
19501950
18751875
❖
1939–45
World War II
1861–65
U.S. Civil War
1866 Born,
Millville,
Ohio
◆
◆

◆
◆
◆
1944 Elected to
Baseball Hall of
Fame; died,
Chicago, Ill.
❖
1914–18
World War I
1934 Negotiated contracts to
make radio stations pay
leagues for privilege of
broadcasting World Series
1921–44 Served as
baseball's first
commissioner
1905–22
Served as
district
judge
for
northern
Illinois
1919 Eight members of Chicago White
Sox accused of throwing World Series
1891 Admitted
to Illinois bar
1907 Fined Standard Oil of Indiana a
record $29.24 million for illegal freight

rebates; fine thrown out on appeal
1915 Presided over antitrust suit brought by Federal
(Baseball) League against American and National Leagues
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
218 LANDIS, KENESAW MOUNTAIN
dictatorial style, yet was reelected several times
during his 24-year reign.
Although Landis is criticized for maintain-
ing racially segregated major league teams, he
is credited with restoring the integrity o f the
sport after the Black Sox cheating scandal—in
which e ight members of the Chicago White
Sox were accused of throwing the 1919 World
Series—nearly ruined baseball. Surprisingly
popular with the public, the former judge
was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in
1944.
Landis was born November 20, 1866, in the
small Ohio town of Millville. He was named
after the mountaintop near Atlanta where his
father, a Union Army surgeon, was wounded in
battle during the
U.S. CIVIL WAR. Although Landis
did not finish high school, he attended the
University of Cincinnati and the Union College
of Law in Chicago. He practiced law in Chicago
until 1905 when he was appointed by President
THEODORE ROOSEVELT to serve as U.S. district
judge for northern Illinois.
Landis made headlines in 1907 when he fined

Standard Oil of Indiana a record $29.24 milli on
for illegal freight rebates. The decision was
applauded by the public but thrown out on
appeal. Landis remained on the federal bench
from 1905 to 1922, also gaining national
attention for his sedi t ion trials of labor leaders
and socialists during
WORLD WAR I. After becoming
the first baseball commissioner in 1921, La ndis
retained his judgeship for one year, until
members of Congress complained about
CONFLICT
OF INTEREST
in matters pertaining to the sport.
In 1921 Landis replaced the three-person
national commission set up in 1903 to oversee
the sport of baseball. Although his official
title was commissioner for the American and
National Leagues of Professional Baseball Clubs
and for the National Association of Professional
Baseball, Landis was often called simply the czar
of baseball.
Landis was asked to do nothing less than
save professional baseball. The game suffered a
public relations disaster after the White Sox
conspiracy and bribery scandal. To cleanse the
sport of corruption or the mere appearance of
cheating, Landis imposed lifetime bans on the
eight White Sox players who had collaborated
with gamblers during the 1919 World Series.

He also did not hesitate to ban other ballplayers
for gambling offenses.
Landis died in Chicago, at age 78, on
November 25, 1944.
LANDLORD
A lessor of real property; the owner or possessor of
an estate in land or a rental property, who, in an
exchange for rent, leases it to another individual
known as the tenant.
CROSS REFERENCE
Landlord and Tenant.
LANDLORD AND TENANT
Landlord and tenant have an asso ciation arising
from an agreement by which one individual
occupies the other’s real property with permission,
subject to a rental fee.
The term
LANDLORD refers to a person who
owns property and allows another person to use
it for a fee. The person using the property
is called a tenant. The agreement between a
landlord and a tenant is called a lease or rental
agreement.
The landlord and tenant relatio nship has its
roots in
FEUDALISM, a system of land use and
ownership that flourished in Europe between
the tenth and thirteenth centuries. Under
feudalism land was owned and controlled by a
military or political sovereign ruler. This ruler

gave portions of land he owned to another
person, called a lord. The lord, in turn, could
Kenesaw Mountain
Landis.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.
REGARDLESS OF THE
VERDICT OF JURIES
,
NO PLAYER THAT
THROWS A BALL
GAME
, … SITS IN
CONFERENCE WITH A
BUNCH OF CROOKED
PLAYERS AND
GAMBLERS WHERE
THE WAYS AND
MEANS OF THROWING
A GAME ARE
DISCUSSED
, AND
DOES NOT PROMPTLY
TELL HIS CLUB
…
WILL EVER AGAIN
PLAY PROFESSIONAL
BASEBALL
.
—KENESAW
MOUNTAIN LANDIS

GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
LANDLORD AND TENANT 219
allow another person, called a vassal, to use
smaller portions of the lord’s l and. The vassal
pledged allegiance and military or other service
to the lord in exchange for the right to live and
work on the land.
In 1066 the Normans of France conquered
England, and William the Conqueror installed
himself as king, becoming William III of
England. He used the feudal framework of land
control to retain political power in faraway
lands. Feudalism as a means of political control
became obsolete by the fourteenth century, but
the hierarchical system of land use and owner-
ship remained.
Legal Relationship
The contemporary landlord and tenant relation-
ship derives from the relationship between the
lord and the vassal. However, in the early 2000s
the landlord is the owner of the property—not,
like the feudal lord, merely the manager. The
tenant is similar to the vassal because the tenant
does not own the property but is allowed to use
it for a fee.
The landlord and tenant relationship usually
refers to a living arrangement. In this respect
landlord and tenant law differs from the law
regarding leases. In a landlord and tenant
relationship, the part ies are often referred to

as lessor (landlord) and lessee (tenant). Indeed,
a lease is a contract that creates the same
relationship as exists between a landlord and
tenant: The lessor owns property and allows the
lessee to use it for a fee. However, the law of
leases does not necessarily concern itself with
living arrangements. A lease agreement may, for
example, relate to the use of a good or service.
Because living arrangements are vital to human
existence, landlord and tenant relationships are
treated differently from lease contracts.
Generally, a landlord and tenant relation-
ship exists if (1) the property owner consents to
occupancy of the premises; (2) the tenant
acknowledges that the owner has title to the
property and a
FUTURE INTEREST in the property;
(3) the owner actually has title to the property;
(4) the tenant receives a limited right to use the
premises; (5) the owner transfers possession
and control of the premises to the tenant; and
(6) a contract to rent exists between the parties.
A rental contract may be implied under the
law. That is, landlord and tenant law may apply
even in the absence of a written and signed
rental agreement between the owner of the
property and the person living on the property.
Whether a court will imply a relationship
depends on the facts of the case. The court will
look at a number of factors, including the

owner’s consent to occupancy of the property,
the length of the occupancy, and the exchange
of monies, goods, or services. A court’s finding
that a landlord and tenant relationship exists
between two or more persons is sign ificant
because the law places duties on both parties in
such a relationship.
Landlord and Tenant Reforms
Traditionally, landlord and tenant law was
favorable to landlords. Courts resolved disputes
between landlords and tenants according to strict
contract and property principles, and tenants
often were forced to pick up and move without
notice or an opportunity to present an argument
to a court. Also, landlords had no obligation to
maintain the premises, and many tenants were
forced to live in uninhabitable conditions.
In the twentieth century, as urban popula-
tions increased and workers became more
specialized, landlord and tenant law was forced
to change. Typical tenants were no longer as
handy at makin g repairs as were tenants in
previous years. They worked long hours, they
did not have the time to maintain premises, and
building designs and utilities were more com-
plex than before. These developments made
maintenance a specialized task that could be
carried out only by the landlord.
Before the 1960s, landlords were not
required to rent out properties that were fit

for habitation. Landlords could rent filthy, rat-
infested apartments lacking hot water and heat.
Although no one was physically forced to live in
such an apartment, for many persons it was the
only kind they could afford.
In the 1960s and 1970s states began to enact
landlord and tenant laws requiring that domes-
tic rental properties be made fit for their particular
purpose. The
IMPLIED WARRANTY of HABITABILITY
established by statute meant that rental property
must have proper plumbing, water, heat, struc-
tural integrity, and other basic features necessary
for human habitability. These laws required
landlords to make domestic rental property
habitable even if they did not promise tenants
habitable conditions in the rental agreement.
Subsequent landlord and tenant statutes
further required cities to create housing agencies
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
220 LANDLORD AND TENANT
to enforce the laws governing habitability. These
agencies are charged with inspecting domestic
rental properties to make sure they meet
maintenance standards set forth in statutes and
agency regulations. The agencies report to a state
agency such as the department of health.
State legislation also governs the financial
aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship. Such
statutes regulate security deposits, require plain

language in rental contracts, require inventory
checklists, set rules on damage to rental units,
and establish rights and duties upon termina-
tion of the rental agreement. In some states
some of these laws are set out in court opinions
or
CASE LAW. However, most landlord and tenant
laws are set out in statutes in an attempt to
make information about rights and duties
accessible and understandable to both parties.
Contemporary landlord and tenant laws
vary from state to state. Local lawmaking bodies
may enact additional landlord and tenant laws,
provided they do not conflict with state laws.
Generally, landlords must deliver the rented
premises to the tenant at the beginning of the
tenancy and must disclose to the tenant any
potential dangers and defects in the premises.
The length of the tenancy should be set out
in the rental agreement. If no term is written
into the agreement, courts will usually deem the
tenancy to be month to month. This means that
either party must give the other one month’s
written notice before terminating the tenancy.
The cost of rent is usually governed by market
forces, which means that it is usually dictated by
what landlords in a similar area charge. Local laws
in some urban areas, such as New York City,
provide for rent control. Rent control laws limit
the amount of rent that a landlord may charge a

tenant. Most rent control laws, however, put
limits on the amount that a landlord may increase
therent.Alandlordmayraiserentduringarental
period only with sufficient notice to a tenant. The
terms of this notice are usually set forth in
statutes or ordinances.
Implied Warranty of Habitability
One important issue in landlord and tenant law
is the implied warranty of habitability. If a
landlord breaches the warranty of habi tability,
the landlord may lose the right to collect rent
from the tenant, and the tenant may lose a place
to live. Mannie Joseph, Inc. v. Stewart (71 Misc.
2d 160, 335 N.Y.S. 2d 709 [1972]) illustrates this
process. In Mannie Joseph, a landlord brought
suit against a tenant, seeking back rent. The
tenant testified in court that the apartment
had no heat, no gas for the stove, no hot water,
no running water in the kitchen, low water
pressure in the bathroom, “ever-present rats
and cockroaches,” soggy ceilings and walls,
broken windowpanes, no superintendent, and
a toilet that did not flush. This testimony was
supported in court by the housing director of
the West Harlem Community Organization and
verified in a personal visit by Judge Richard S.
Lane, who noted that the oral testimony had not
been sufficient to prepare him for what he saw.
Judge Lane found that the landlord had
breached the implied warranty of habitability

and refused to order the tenant to make back
rent payments. In his opinion, Lane wondered
why the tenant should have to pay for what she
was receiving. He abated, or forgave, the rent
and ordered the landlord to pay the tenant’s
court costs.
Lane could have ordered the landlord to
make repairs, but there were not enough people
still living in the building to warrant such an
order. In fact, the department of health had
recently ordered the building vacated, and Lane
lamented that the tenant would “soon follow her
many former co-tenants out into the streets.”
Implied Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment
Landlords have additional duties and restric-
tions under landlord and tenant statutes. Under
the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment, a
landlord must give notice to the tenant and
receive permission from the tenant before
entering rented premises. This rule does not
apply if there is a
BONA FIDE emergency, such as
a fire or some other danger to the premises.
A concept related to quiet enjoyment is the
tenant’s right to reasonable use of the premises.
Landlords may not substantially interfere with
this right. Whether actions by the landlord
substantially interfere w ith a tenant’s reasonable
use of the premises is determined by the facts of
the case. To illustrate, assume that a tenant rents

an apartment and works there repairing elec-
tronic equipment. The landlord’s refusal to
allow the tenant to co nduct such activity may
constitute substantial interference of a reason-
able use. If, however, the tenant uses the
premises to mix explosive materials, the land-
lord may have the right to interfere because
such a use is unreasonable.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
LANDLORD AND TENANT 221
If a landlord is found to have interfered with
a tenant’s quiet enjoyment or reasonable use of
the premises, the tenant may recover damages.
The measure of damages varies by jurisdiction.
Usually, the tenant will not have to pay rent for
the period of interference, and the tenant may
seek damages for any losses caused by the
interference.
Reciprocal Duties
There are several reciprocal duties between
landlords and tenants. A landlord must keep
the premises in good repair, but the tenant must
not damage the premises. The tenant must leave
the premises in their original condition, ac-
counting for reasonable wear and tear, or risk
losing the security deposit. A security deposit is
money deposited by the tenant with the
landlord to guarantee the tenant’s performance
under the lease. If the tenant damages the
premises, the landlord may keep the security

deposit and sue the tenant for damages not
covered by the deposit.
A landlord must give a tenant notice to
vacate the premises if the landlord wishes to
rent the premises to another tenant. The
landlord may not do this during a rental period.
For example, if a tenant has signed a lease for
one year, the landlord may not force the tenant
to move until the end of the year. If the lease
period expires and the landlord has not found a
new tenant and has not issued a new lease to the
present tenant, the present tenant may be
allowed to stay on the premises on a month-to-
month basis.
If the tenant plans to move during a rental
period, the tenant must give at least a one-
month written notice to the landlord. If the
tenant fails to give notice to the landlord and
leaves the premises, the tenant may be respon-
sible for future rental payments. However, in
this situation, the landlord is under a duty to
take reasonable steps to find another tenant.
This is called the duty to mitigate damages.
Once the landlord finds another tenant, or the
original lease expires, the tenant’s duty to pay
expires.
Eviction
If the lease period expires and the landlord has
found a new tenant, but the present tenant
refuses to leave the premises, the landlord may

sue the present tenant for damages if the
landlord could be charging the new tenant
more rent. The landlord may also have the
tenant evicted by filing suit in court. Such a suit
is called a wrongful or unlawful detainer.
Unlawful detainers are governed by statute
and may be based on damage to the property,
nonpayment of rent, or unforeseen changes in
the economic conditions of the landlord.
All states provide for unlawful detainer
hearings. These proceedings help landlords
avoid financial loss. Depending on the statute,
a court will schedule an unlawful detainer
hearing from one to thre e weeks after the
landlord files suit. In most states the hearing is
limited to issues concerning the tenant’s and
landlord’s rights and duties. The majority of
states prohibit landlords from removing a
tenant’s personal property from the premises
until after the court orders an eviction.
A tenant may avoid eviction for nonpay-
ment of rent by paying the past due rent along
with any filing costs incurred by the landlord. If
the tenant is unable to pay rent before the court
date, the tenant can still present defenses to the
eviction in court. For example, the tenant may
argue that the rent is not due because the
landlord failed to make nece ssary repairs. If
the tenant i s unable to defend successfully the
failure to pay rent, the court will order the

tenant to vacate the premises by a certain date
in the near future. In order to collect the unpaid
rent, the landlord usually must file a separate
action against the tenant.
Sometimes the action or inaction of a
landlord may constitute a
CONSTRUCTIVE EVIC-
TION
. A constructive eviction occurs when the
landlord has made living on the premises
unbearable or impossible. For example, assume
that a landlord has refused to provide heat to
rented premises. This constitutes a constructive
eviction, and the tenant is not liable for rent.
Eviction from Public Housing
The law of eviction differs for tenants in public
housing. Public housing is low-cost housing
provided by the federal government to impo-
verished persons. Under the National Public
Housing Asset Forfeiture Project (28 U.S.C.A.
§ 881[a][7]), the
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
and the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT may
evict persons from public housing without
notice and without a hearing, under exigent
circumstances—that is, when the eviction is
directly necessary to secure an important
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
222 LANDLORD AND TENANT

government or public interest, and there is a
special need for prompt action. An eviction
from public housing can be initiated only by the
proper government authorities.
Whether exigent circumstances exist to
justify eviction without notice and a hearing
depends on the facts of the case. The mere use or
possession of illegal narcotics, for example, does
not warrant summary eviction. However, if an
apartment in a public housing project is being
used for constant, high-level drug dealing, such
activity may constitute exigent circumstances
(Richmond Tenants Organization v. Kemp, 956
F.2d 1300 [4th Cir. 1992]). Although public
housing tenants have increased eviction risks, the
additional eviction procedures that must be
followed by governments make eviction of public
housing tenants a longer, more complicated
process than eviction of private tenants.
The Supreme Court in Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) v.
Rucker (535 U. S. 125, 122 S. Ct. 1230, 152
L. Ed. 2d 258 [2002]), upheld the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 to address the problem of
drug-related criminal activity in federally subsi-
dized public housing. The act mandated that
every local public housing agency insert a clause in
its standard lease document that gives the agency
the right to evict tenants if they use or tolerate
the use of illegal drugs on or near their premises.

Assignment of a Lease
A tenant may give his or her rights as a tenant
to another person. This is called an assignment,
and it is permissible unless the landlord objects
or unless it is prohibited in the rental agreement.
If a tenant assigns his or her rights, the tenant is
still responsible for the payment of rent. In
essence the recipient of the rental rights, or
assignee, is a tenant of the original tenant, and
there is no legal relationship between the assignee
and the landlord.
Courts often examine lease agreements for
unconscionability. Unconscionable agreements
are ones that unduly favor one party over the
other. For example, assume that a rental
agreement calls for the payment of damages to
the landlord if the tenant leaves the apartment
without sufficient notice. If the court considers
the amount of damages to be too high, it may
reduce the damages owed to the landlord.
Some lease agreements allow either party to
break the agreement, and specify an amount of
damages that the breaching party must pay
to the other in the event of breach. Landlord-
tenant relationships governed by such agree-
ments are called tenancies at sufferance. Courts
usually examine these agreements to ensure that
they are not unconscionable.
Tenant-Rights Organizations
In many cities tenant organizations operate to

protect the interests of tenants. These organiza-
tions offer information and services to tenants.
Most tenant groups offer information and
services to nonmembers for a fee based on the
tenant’s ability to pay and the amount of work
necessary to resolve the tenant’s rental issues.
Most states have statutes that prohibit landlords
from evicting a tenan t based on the tenant’s
membership or participation in a tenant
organization.
Landlords are under no obligation to rent to
tenants. However, under the
FAIR HOUSING ACT OF
1968 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 3601–3619 [1988 & Supp.
III 1991]), they may not refuse to rent based
on race, color,
RELIGION, sex, handicap, familial
status, or national origin.
FURTHER READINGS
Bartley, Robert L. 2003. “Rent Control: New York’s Self-
Destruction.” Wall Street Journal (May 19).
Brennan, Gabriel, ed. 2002. Landlord and Tenant Law. 2d ed.
Oxford, New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Federlein, Walter J. 1996. “1995 PA 79: An Affirmative Act
for Senior Citizen Tenants.” Michigan Bar Journal 75.
Gerchick, Randy G. 1994. “No Easy Way Out: Making the
Summary Eviction Process a Fairer and More Efficient
Alternative to Landlord Self-Help.” University of
California at Los Angeles Law Review 41.
Kelley, Robert H. 1995. “Any Reports of the Death of the

Property Law Paradigm for Leases Have Been Greatly
Exaggerated.” Wayne Law Review 41.
Korona, Raymond I. 2001. Landlord and Tenant Law. 5th ed.
St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.
Kurtzberg, Joel, and Jamie Henikoff. 1997. “Freeing the
Parties from the Law: Designing an Interest and Rights
Focused Model of Landlord/Tenant Mediation.” Jour-
nal of Dispute Resolution 1997 (spring): 53–118.
McCurley, Robert L., Jr. 2002. “Landlord-Tenant Act.”
Alabama Lawyer 63 (November): 348–49.
CROSS REFERENCES
Mitigation of Damages; Rent Strike; Subletting
LANDMARK
A structure that has significant historical, architec-
tural, or cultural meaning and that has been given
legal protection from alteration and destruction.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
LANDMARK 223
Although landmark preservation laws vary
by city and state, they have the same basic
purpose: to keep landmarks as close to their
original condition as possible. As a legal
specialty, landmark and preservation law has
developed as the number of designated land-
marks has grown in the United States.
Landmarks are often buildings such as
hotels, homes, skyscrapers, theaters, museums,
stores, libraries, churches, and synagogues.
Other structures, such as bridges, and even
natural points of interest, such as trees, can also

be designated as landmarks if they have special
historical, architectural, or cultural significance.
New York City divides its landmarks into
four categories: individual, interior, scenic, and
historic district. Individual landmarks are
designated for their exterior. Interior landmarks
are noted for the portions of their interior that
are open to the public. Scenic landmarks
encompass structures that are not buildings,
such as bridges, piers, parks, cemeteries, side-
walks, clocks, and trees. Historic district
landmarks include entire areas that have archi-
tectural unity and quality or that represent a
specific architectural period or style. All build-
ings within a designated historical district are
protected from alteration or destruction.
The Chrysler Building in New York City is
an example of an individual landmark. At the
time of its completion, in 1930, it was the tallest
buil ding in New York City, at 77 stories and
1,04 6 feet. Built by Walter P. Chrysler, the
founder of the Chrysler Corporation, the
buil ding remains a part of the New York City
skyline. The building’s art deco style is unique.
Outside the 31st floor, a line of cars made of
gray and w hite bricks encircles the building.
The cars have chrome hubcaps, which are
embedded in the wall. On each of the
FOUR
CORNERS

of this fl oor is a buttress, and atop each
buttress is a giant steel eagle similar in style to
the ornament that used to adorn the Chrysler
radiator cap. The floors from the 31st to the
59th make up a tower, and the 59th floor is
marked with eight gargoyles . A sp ire begins on
the 59th floor, constructed of arches with
triangular windows. At night the spire is lit
from the inside, highlighting its place in the
Manhattan skyline.
Once a landmark has been designated, it is
legally protected from alteration or destruction.
If the owner of a landmark wishes to change
it, the alterations must be approved by the
commission or council that governs the land-
marks in the city or state in which the landmark
is located.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission
of New York City is one such body. Since its
creation in 1965, the commission has designated
more than a thousand landmarks in New York
City. The commission creates guidelines for
landmark designation, designates landmarks,
and reviews applications for the alteration of
previously designated landmarks. The group is
made up of 11 commissioners, including at
least one from each of the five boroughs of
New York City.
Many U.S. cities have ordinances regulating
historical preservation of landmarks. Under

these ordinances a landmark owner basically
has two obligations: First, the owner is respon-
sible for the upkeep of the building or structure,
which is a basic requirement for any property
owner; and second, the owner is required to get
advance approval for any exterior improve-
ments or alterations to the landmark. Requests
for alterations are made to the appropriate city
or state preservation commission.
New York City’s Landmarks Preservation
Law was passed in 1965, two years after the
New York City’s
Chrysler Building
(foreground) and
Empire State Building
(left) are examples of
individual
landmarks.
AP IMAGES
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
224 LANDMARK
historic Pennsylvania Station in New York City
was demolished to make way for Madison
Square Garden. The demise of this historical
structure was one among many that spark ed the
movement to enact preservation laws to protect
landmarks.
Despite their prevalence landmark laws are
often challenged by property owners who feel
that the law s create undue interference with

their use of their property. Typically, a land-
mark owner argues that a taking has occurred
because a city or state preservation council has
rejected the owner’s application to alter the
landmark. A taking is defined as interference
with or damage to a private property owner’s
land-use rights. In zoning law cases, a taking can
occur if a property owner is denied economically
viable use of the land or the buildings on the
land. In landmark cases the line between taking
and a legitimate government-imposed limita-
tion is often blurred.
The 1978 case of Penn Central Transporta-
tion Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct.
2646, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631, illustrates the strength of
New York City’s landmark preservation laws
over the desires of a landmark owner. Penn
Central, the owner of the Grand Central
Terminal, leased the building to a company
that planned to construct a 50-story office tower
on top of it. However, the New York City
Landmarks Preservation Commission had des-
ignated the terminal as a historic landmark, and
the commission refused to allow the building’s
exterior to be altered by the planned tower.
Penn Centra l sued the city, and the case went to
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Penn Central argued that the construction
denial was a taking. New York City argued that
“regulating private property for historical,

cultural or aesthetic values, if it is done in
accord with a comprehensive plan that provides
benefit to all, is in the public interest.” The city
also argued that the meaningful preservation of
landmarks meant that any additions should
“protect, enhance and perpetuate the original
design, rather than overwhelm it.”
The Supreme Court ruled that it was
constitutional, “as part of a comprehensive
program to preserve historic landmarks and
historic districts, [to] place restrictions on the
development of individual historic landmarks
… without effecting a ‘taking.’”
Penn Central established three factors for
determining whether a taking has occurred in
landmark land-use cases: the economic effect of
the regulation on the claimant; how much the
regulation affected investment-backed expecta-
tions; and the character of the government
action—whether there was a legitimate state
interest, such as an interest in preserving
existing landmarks. New York City’s refusal to
permit construction did not reduce Penn
Central’s income or interfere with its original
intent of operating the terminal, and because
New York City had a legitimate state interest
(preserving the landmark in its original state),
the Supreme Court ruled that a taking had not
occurred and that the landmark law was
constitutional.

In the 1980 case of Agins v. City of Tiburon,
447 U.S. 255, 100 S. Ct. 2138, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106,
the Supreme Court ruled that “regulation is a
taking if it doesn’t substantially advance legiti-
mate state interests or denies an owner econom-
ically viable use of his land.” Agins established a
two-part test to determine whether a taking has
occurred. Under Agins a regulation is a taking if
it does not substantially advance a legitimate
state interest and if it denies the landmark owner
all economically viable use of the land. The Agins
RULING clarified the amount of economic effect
necessary for a regulation to be considered a
taking. If a regulation prevented all economically
viable use of the land, it was a taking. However,
if a regulation left some economically viable use,
it was not considered a taking.
Twelve years later, in Lucas v. South
Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112
S. Ct. 2886, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1992), the Court
clarified its definition of economically viable
use, stating that it was any use that was greater
than zero.
FURTHER READINGS
Diamonstein, Barbaralee. 1992. Landmarks: Eighteen Won-
ders of the New York World. New York: Abrams.
Kayden, Jerold S. 1996. “Hunting for Quarks: Constitutional
Takings, Property Rights, and Government Regula-
tion.” Washington Univ. Journal of Urban and Contem-
porary Law 50 (fall).

———. 1994. “Historic Preservation and the New Takings
Cases: Landmarks Preserved.” Fordham Environmental
Law Journal 6.
National Historic Landmarks Program. Available online at
website home page:
(accessed August 5, 2009).
New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Available online at />home/home.shtml; website home page: http://www.
nyc.gov (accessed August 5, 2009).
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
LANDMARK 225
Nivala, John. 1996. “The Future for Our Past: Preserving
Landmark Preservation.” New York Univ. Environmen-
tal Law Journal 5. Available online at http://works.
bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=
john_nivala; website home page: ress.
com (accessed August 5, 2009).
CROSS REFERENCES
Eminent Domain; Land -Use Control.
LANDRUM-GRIFFIN ACT
The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclo-
sure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C.A. § 401 et seq.),
commonly known as the Landrum-Griffin Act, is
an important component of federal
LABOR L AW.
The act was named after its sponsors, Represen-
tative Phillip M. Landrum of Georgia and
Senator Robert P. Griffin of Michigan. The
provisions of Landrum-Griffin seek to prevent
union corruption and to guarantee union

members that unions will be run democratically.
The act resulted from a highly publicized
investigation of union corruption and
RACK-
ETEERING
chaired by Senator JOHN L. MCCLELLAN of
Arkansas. The Senate Select Committee on
Labor and Management Practices, popularly
known as the McClellan Committ ee, was
created in 1957 in large part because of the
perception that the Teamsters Union was
corrupt and under the influence of organized
crime. The McClellan Committee’s investiga-
tion revealed that officials of the Teamsters
Union and other groups had taken union funds
for private use and that the union was clearly
linked to organized crime. One result of the
probe was the expulsion of the Teamsters and
two other unions from the American Federation
of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions (AFL-CIO). The AFL-CIO is the largest
U.S. labor organization, a federation of auto-
nomous labor unions that is dedicated to
enhancing and promoting unionism.
The other result was the passage of the
Landrum-Griffin Act. To prevent abuses and
acts of oppression, the act attempts to regulate
some internal union affairs and provides for
reporting to the government on various union
transactions and affairs. Senator

JOHN F. KENNEDY
of Massachusetts was instrumental in inserting
title I of the act (29 U.S.C.A. § 411 et seq.),
which has been dubbed the union
BILL OF RIGHTS.
Title I mandates
FREEDOM OF SPEECH and assem-
bly in the conduct of union meetings, equality
of rights regarding voting in elections, the
nomination of candidates, and attendance at
meetings. A secret ballot is required for voting
on increases in dues or assessments. In regard to
disciplinary actions, a member must be given
written charges, time to prepare a defense, and
a
FAIR HEARING. The act also guarantees that a
member will not be subject to union discipline
for attempting to exercise statutory rights.
A member must have access to union financial
records and has the right to recover misappro-
priated union assets on behalf of the union
when the union fails to do so.
Title II (29 U.S.C.A. § 431 et seq.) deals with
the management and reporting of union
finances, a particular area of concern for
Congress in the wake of the Teamsters Union’s
misappropriation of funds. The act requires
unions to have constitutions and bylaws and to
file copies of both with the U.S. secretary of
labor. They must file reports that show dues,

fees, and assessments; qualifications for mem-
bership; financial auditing; and authorization
for the disbursement of funds and other types of
spending. Unions must also file financial
reports that show assets and liabilities at the
beginning and end of the fiscal year, receipts,
salaries, expense reimbursements, and loans to
any officer, employee, member, or busines s
enterprise. Officers and employees of unions
may be required to disclose in written reports
any personal financial interests that may conflict
with duties owed to union members and any
transactions or business interests that would
present a
CONFLICT OF INTEREST with union duties.
The act also has provisions that apply w hen
a labor organization suspends the autonomy of
a union local and places the local or another
unit under a trusteeship. This provision
addresses a concern that corrupt national union
leaders may take over control of union locals to
maintain power. The law provides the condi-
tions under which a trusteeship may be
imposed and certain restrictions under which
it may operate.
Landrum-Griffin also addresses the personal
responsibility and integrity of union officers and
representatives. Under the act, officers and
representatives are held to common-law prin-
ciples of trust relationships through express

provisions that they occupy positions of trust in
relation to the organization and its members as
a group. This means that persons in union
leadership positions must act in the best
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
226 LANDRUM-GRIFFIN ACT
interests of the union. If a union official acts for
personal gain, the official can be held account-
able for breach of duty. Embezzlement of union
funds is a federal offense under the act. And
persons who have been convicted of certain
specified crimes are barred from serving as
union officers, agents, or employees for five
years after being released from prison.
The Landrum-Griffin Act provides the tools
for union democracy, but it also provides
greater government contro l over union affairs
previously believed to be the province of the
unions themselves.
FURTHER READINGS
Boetticher, Helene. 2000. “How to Hold a Union Election
and Stay out of Trouble.” Labor Law Journal 51
(winter).
Nelson, Michael J. 2000. “Slowing Union Corruption:
Reforming the Landrum-Griffin Act to Better Combat
Union Embezzlement.” George Mason Law Review 8
(spring).
United Auto Workers. 2009. “Unions and Their Members:
The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act.” Detroit, MI: International Union, UAW. Available

online at website
home page: (accessed September 6,
2009).
v
LANFRANC
Lanfranc served as archbishop of Canterbury
under William the Conquerer. He reformed
the English church, established strong church-
state relations, and introduced components of
Roman and
CANON LAW to England. Under
William’s reign, he laid the foundation for what
succeeding theorists would build into England’s
secular common-law court system. Early U.S.
law derived some elements from this system.
Lanfranc was born in about 1005 in Pavia,
Italy. He studied law in Pavia and became a
respected scholar, principally because of his
studies in Roman law, which was a subject of
growing interest in Italy at the time.
Lanfranc established a school at Avranches,
Normandy, and taught for three years, until
about 1042. After being attacked and almost
killed by a highway robber, he went into
seclusion at Saint Stephens Abbey at Bec, a
newly established monastery. After three years
of total seclusion, he returned to teaching, this
time at the monastery. He taught there for
18 years, earning high respect throughout
Europe as an instructor of theology. The school

became one of the most famous in Europe
under his leadership. The future pope Alexan-
der II was among his students.
When William the Conquerer decided to
marry Matilda of Flanders, Lanfranc declared
that the union would be a violation of canon law.
Because of Lanfranc’s strong opposition, William
threatened to exile him. Lanfranc eventually gave
up his stand against the
MARRIAGE. In about 1051
William married Matilda, despite a papal ban on
the union. Lanfranc sought support from the
pope and engineered an eventual reconciliation
of the papacy with the king. Six years after the
wedding, William received the pope’s approval
to marry Matilda. In 1063 the grateful king
appointed Lanfranc the first abbot of Saint
Stephens.
Lanfranc also successfully lobbied for papal
support for William’s subsequent invasion of
England. Because of these efforts, Lanfranc
became William’s closest and most trusted
adviser by the time of the invasion in 1066,
which resulted in the Norman Conquest.
▼▼
▼▼
Lanfranc c.1005–1089
10001000
10501050
10751075

11001100
10251025
❖
❖
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
1087
William I
died
1055
Council
of Tours
1051
William the Conqueror
married Matilda
of Flanders
1066
William the Conqueror
led the Norman
Conquest of England
c.1005 Born,
Pavia, Italy
1089 Died,
Canterbury,
England
1076 Wrote

ordinance separating
secular and
ecclesiastical courts
1063
Appointed
first abbot
of Saint
Stephens
1070 Appointed archbishop of Canterbury
and chief justiciar by William I
◆
1045–66 Taught
theology at
Saint Stephens
Abbey
◆
1042 Attacked by highway
robbers; joined Benedictine order
at Saint Stephens Abbey at Bec
YOU CAN OFFER GOD
NO GREATER OR
MORE PLEASING GIFT
THAN YOUR DESIRE
TO GOVERN DIVINE
AND HUMAN AFFAIRS
BY THE APPROPRIATE
LAWS
.
—LANFRANC
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION

LANFRANC 227