Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) went a step further and affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5–4 decision received heavy press coverage and ...
The term "eminent domain" was taken from the legal treatise De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625, [7] which used the term dominium eminens (Latin for "supreme ownership") and described the power as follows:
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (1970) ("URA") was passed by the U.S. federal government in 1970. It was intended to ensure fair compensation and assistance for those whose property was compulsorily acquired for public use under eminent domain law.
"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 Law of Eminent Domain; A Treatise on the Principles which Affect the Taking of Property for the Public Use. Vol. I. Albany, New York: Matthew Bender & Company. OCLC 43697002 – via Internet Archive. Nichols, Philip (1917). The Law of Eminent Domain; A Treatise on the Principles which Affect the Taking of Property for the Public Use. Vol. II.
Under state laws, the first step of eminent domain is negotiations between the property owner and condemning authority — the city of Lakeland — in attempts to reach an agreed upon price.
Dominium directum et utile is composed of: [2] [3] [4]. Dominium directum (or eminent domain, superiority): the landlord's estate consisting of the right to dispose of property and to collect rents (feu-duty) and feudal incidents (fees, services, etc.) accruing from it.
This power of eminent domain is not only a privilege of the federal, but also state governments. While the petitioners protest that no act of the United States Congress was used to determine the details of the acquisition, the Court ruled such legislation appropriate but unnecessary; it did not prevent the right to acquire land from being ...