Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could use eminent domain to take land that was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners and redistribute it to the wider population of private residents.
At a special meeting last Thursday, the Town Council authorized the use of eminent domain to seize a 31-acre site currently owned by developer Waterman Chenango LLC. The eminent domain resolution ...
The Brewers received a 30-day notice to vacate their home back in 2018 after it was seized by the state through eminent domain — which is when governments take over private property for public use.
City commissioners voted unanimously Oct. 2 to approve the use of eminent domain, if needed, to obtain the Richardsons' 1.3-acre homestead at 613 and 623 Union Drive.
The term "eminent domain" was taken from the legal treatise De Jure Belli et Pacis, written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625, [4] which used the term dominium eminens (Latin for supreme lordship) and described the power as follows:
Jul. 29—ROCHESTER — A unanimous four-judge panel of the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division Fourth Department in Rochester has rejected arguments from Niagara Falls Redevelopment ...
The power to take private property for public uses, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, is an incident of sovereignty, belonging to every independent government and requiring no constitutional recognition, and it exists in the government of the United States. Affirmed opinion of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Court membership