Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A hearing on Tuesday raised questions about a railroad company’s use of eminent domain in one of Georgia’s poorest areas. After three days of hearings in November, an officer for the Georgia ...
Abuse Of Power: How The Government Misuses Eminent Domain, Seven Locks Press, June, 2004, trade paperback, 312 pages, ISBN 1931643377 Galperin, Joshua U. "A Warning To States, Accepting this Invitation May be Hazardous to Your Health (Safety and Public Welfare): An Analysis of Post-Kelo Legislative Activity . 31 Vermont Law Review 663 (2007).
(c) The General Assembly may by law require the condemnor to make prepayment against adequate compensation as a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of eminent domain and provide for the disbursement of the same to the end that the rights and equities of the property owner, lien holders, and the state and its subdivisions may be ...
Eminent domain claims can make the case that your property would better serve the public if it was not yours, but rather everyone’s. Turnpike's land seizure, other eminent domain acts could mean ...
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.
The state's eminent domain policies shifted after residents fought a controversial condemnation in 1981 for General Motors' plant, now known as Factory Zero, in Detroit's Poletown neighborhood.
Lawyers representing the property owners and the No Railroad in Our Community Coalition, which formed to stop the railroad’s construction, say that Sandersville has not met the requirements of Georgia’s eminent domain law. The law requires the company to show that the railroad will serve a public use and needs the line for business.
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.