Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Inverse condemnation is a term which describes a claim brought against the government in which a property owner seeks compensation for a `taking' of his property under the Fifth Amendment. In states that prohibit uncompensated taking or damaging, physical damage to property is included in this definition.
Market value is the prevailing, but not exclusive measure of determining the just compensation owed to a landowner under the Fifth Amendment. Fair Market Value is defined by appraisers as the most probable price, in terms of cash that would be paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller, each being fully informed of the property's good and bad features, with the property being exposed on the ...
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.
It also accused the borough of “inverse condemnation,” contending the threat of similar floods in the future has “permanently and substantially” reduced their homes’ values.
V, XIV. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), was a 6–3 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The court held that the complete destruction of the value of property constituted a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated regulatory taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation challenged. [1]
The Court stated that here, Tennessee law provides for an inverse condemnation action to seek compensation from the state for a taking of property. Since this qualifies as a "'reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation," [10] Hamilton Bank could not allege a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it had ...