Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Most states use the term eminent domain, but some U.S. states use the term appropriation or expropriation (Louisiana) as synonyms for the exercise of eminent domain powers. [47] [48] The term condemnation is used to describe the formal act of exercising the power to transfer title or some lesser interest in the subject property.
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]
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.
Imminent peril, or imminent danger, [1] is an American legal concept that defines the term as "certain danger, immediate, and impending; ...
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.
QUINCY − City officials say they want to either to buy the building at 119 Parkingway now leased to IHOP or take it by eminent domain.. Plans by Hingham-based Atlantic Development for a public ...
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 ...
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.