Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 262; 17 Mile Drive – A private scenic road on the California coast some 250 miles north of Malibu on the Monterey peninsula. Berman v. Parker – A later case (1954) in the Supreme Court regarding the power of eminent domain.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Eminent domain has been used to acquire land from African-Americans for urban renewal redevelopments [25] and in other cases to dispossess them and remove them from areas where their presence was not desired by white neighbors, e.g. Bruce's Beach subdivision in Los Angeles, California. [26]
"The use of eminent domain will do more harm than good," he said. "We need mortgage investors and lenders to come back to these fragile markets -- but this plan will force both groups to avoid them."
The operative law is a patchwork of statutes and case law. The principal acts are the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 ( 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18), [ 30 ] the Land Compensation Act 1961 , the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 , the Land Compensation Act 1973 , [ 31 ] the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 , part IX of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ...
Richmond is the first city to adopt such a plan using eminent domain, a law that typically allows government to seize land for public use -- such as when it wants to expand a road or allow for a ...
The legal doctrine of eminent domain ... Takings Clause case law (62 P) ... 2008 California Propositions 98 and 99; A.
The Fifth Amendment's Takings clause does not provide for the compensation of relocation expenses if the government takes a citizen's property. [1] Therefore, until 1962, citizens displaced by a federal project were guaranteed just compensation for the property taken by the government, but had no legal right or benefit for the expenses they paid to relocate.