Question: What was a landmark case regarding the practice of zoning and property rights, Arizona v. United States or Dolan v. City of Tigard ?

full_context: Document 1: Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law. In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself. No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.
Document 2: 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.
Document 3: 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.
Document 4: Kelo v. City of New London: Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Document 5: Sovereign immunity in the United States: In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity from lawsuits, although in some cases this immunity has been waived by law. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim "rex non potest peccare", meaning "the king can do no wrong."
Document 6: United States nationality law: The United States nationality law is a uniform rule of naturalization of the United States set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, enacted under the power of Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution (also referred to as the Nationality Clause), which reads: Congress shall power - "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization..." The 1952 Act sets forth the legal requirements for the acquisition of, and divestiture from, American nationality. The requirements have become more explicit since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, with the most recent changes to the law having been made by Congress in 2001.
Document 7: United States v. Wheeler (1920): United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), is an 8-to-1 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Constitution alone did not grant the federal government the power to prosecute kidnappers, and only the states had the authority to punish a private citizen's unlawful violation of another's freedom of movement. The case was a landmark interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, and contained a classic legal statement of the right to travel which continues to undergird American jurisprudence.
Document 8: Nectow v. City of Cambridge: Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling, and found that the invasion of the plaintiff's property right was "serious and highly injurious," and that the placement of the locus of the zoning ordinance would not promote the health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the inhabitants of Cambridge. It, along with Euclid v. Ambler, makes up the Supreme Court's case law on zoning.
Document 9: 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.
Document 10: Chy Lung v. Freeman: Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876) was a United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that the power to set rules surrounding immigration, and to manage foreign relations, rested with the United States Federal Government, rather than with the states. The case has been cited in other Supreme Court cases related to government authority on matters relating to immigration policy and immigration enforcement, most recently in "Arizona v. United States" (2012).
Document 11: Freedom of movement under United States law: Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in "Corfield v. Coryell," 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In "Paul v. Virginia," 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as "Ward v. Maryland," 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the "Slaughter-House Cases," 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and "United States v. Harris," 106 U.S. 629 (1883).
Document 12: 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.
Document 13: Berman v. Parker: Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Court voted 8–0, holding private property could be taken for a public "purpose" with just compensation. This case laid the foundation for the Court's later important public use cases, "Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff", 467 U.S. 229 (1984) and "Kelo v. City of New London", 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Critics of recent occurrences of eminent domain uses trace what they view as property rights violations to this case.
Document 14: City of Norwood v. Horney: Norwood, Ohio v. Horney 110 Ohio St.3d 353 was a case brought before the Ohio Supreme Court in 2006. The case came upon the heels of "Kelo v. City of New London", in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that commercial development justified the use of eminent domain. "Kelo" had involved the United States Constitution, while the issue in "Norwood" was the specific limitations of the Ohio State Constitution.
Document 15: Cabell v. Chavez-Salido: Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld a state law as constitutional that excluded aliens from positions as probation officers. The Court found that probation officers fell within the political function exception to strict scrutiny equal protection analysis because probation officers exercise discretionary power involving a basic governmental function that gives them authority over the individual.
ground_truth: Dolan v. City of Tigard