Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil ...
The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789 and ratified by the states: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be ...
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.
Apr. 23—Residents who decide to resist the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority's lawful right to use eminent domain will be subject to eviction and possible arrest as trespassers, a legal expert said.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...