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.
Eminent domain. Eminent domain[a] (also known as land acquisition, [b] compulsory purchase, [c] resumption, [d] resumption / compulsory acquisition, [e] or expropriation[f]) is the power to take private property for public use. It does not include the power to take and transfer ownership of private property from one property owner to another ...
Eminent domain in the United States. In the United States, eminent domain is the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring just compensation to be given to the original owner. It can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private ...
The "Takings Clause", the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, limits the power of eminent domain by requiring "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use. It was the only clause in the Bill of Rights drafted solely by James Madison and not previously recommended to him by other constitutional delegates or a state ...
Jul. 27—The Texas Supreme Court recently affirmed in a 5-3 decision that Texas Central has the right to exercise eminent domain power in building the proposed high speed rail from Dallas to Houston.
The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City (1973). [3] In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal.
The county commissioners were responding to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission’s June 10 decision to use eminent domain to seize 5,000 acres of land in Freestone County. That land includes ...
Property law. Inverse condemnation is a legal concept and cause of action used by property owners when a governmental entity takes an action which damages or decreases the value of private property without obtaining ownership of the property through the use of eminent domain. Thus, unlike the typical eminent domain case, the property owner is ...