...Kelo v. City of New London FACTS: The City of New London approved development plans to revitalize an economically distressed area into 90 acres of residential, recreational, and commercial zones. The city purchased several properties, and intended to acquire others by exercising eminent domain. The city initiated condemnation proceedings after failing to purchase several lots. Petitioners initiated an action in the New London Superior Court citing violation of the public use restriction of the 5th Amendment. The court granted a permanent restraining order to some petitioners and denied it to others. Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, which held that all proposed takings of land were valid public use. Writ of Certiorari...
Words: 287 - Pages: 2
...Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005). Facts: The city of New London, CT hired an independent agency to revitalized one of its waterfront properties. This revitalization was intended to create jobs and generate tax revenue for the city. To accomplish this, the independent agency was given authority to acquire the properties by buying them or eminent domain. The independent agency acquired majority of the properties, but some property owners refused to sell. The lower court affirmed both sides, but the Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the city of New London, CT; claiming that it was in line with the Fifth Amendment. The US Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court stating that the city’s actions were justified and there is no way to undermine their decision on what was considered “public use.” Legal Issue: Whether the city of New London, CT has the right to consider private property that is not blighted for economical purposes under “public use?” Legal Holding: In a five to four decision, the US Supreme Court declared that economical benefits resulting from redevelopment is considered as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. Judges: Majority Judges “Opinion of the Court” Stevens, Author of Opinion The city of New London, CT revitalization plan met the requirements as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. “Concurring” Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg,...
Words: 655 - Pages: 3
...This case is about Kelo v. City of New London. The first case on the issue of eminent domain was Norwood v. Horney. A developer named Jeffrey Anderson decided that he wanted to expand his real estate empire that was worth 500,000,000. He wanted to build condominiums, office space, and a chain of stores to replace the well-kept neighborhood where Carl and Joy Gamble and other IJ clients lived. In the article “Norwood, OH Eminent Domain,” “After choosing to bulldoze the Gamble’s neighborhood for his private gain, Anderson initiated and paid for a “study” the Norwood government used to declare the well-kept neighborhood “deteriorating” so it could use eminent domain under Ohio law.” Under urban renewal laws and the Ohio Constitution, eminent domain...
Words: 285 - Pages: 2
...I. KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. II. CITATION: 545 U.S. 469 (2005) III. FACTS: The city of New London, Connecticut, after the closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, reactivated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a non-profit entity for land development in the city, specifically the Fort Trumbull area vacated by the U.S. Navy. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed an interest in locating a research and production facility in the area. The city advised the NLDC to move forward with its plans. Over 90 acres of property were purchased and acquired through eminent domain for the development of residential housing, recreational, marina, retail and industrial parcels. Of the 90 acres, thirty-two of the acres came from Fort Trumbull and the remainder from private owners. All private owners, except 15, sold to the city for the project. The remaining 15 held out not for money, but for emotional and sentimental reasons. The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the taking of the private property under eminent domain. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and grouped all 15 cases in one appeal. IV. LEGAL ISSUES: Is the use of eminent domain to acquire property by the government and redirect for private use repugnant to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”? Is the taking of property from A and giving it to B for economic...
Words: 1569 - Pages: 7
...When Should Eminent Domain be Used? When should a city or state use their eminent domain powers? Over the past few years there have been a couple of cases that raised the questions of when eminent domain should be used. One of the most controversial cases in the history of the United States was the Kelo v New London Supreme Court ruling. In order to generate tax revenue, add jobs, and to prevent bankruptcy, the government’s right to initiate eminent domain for public good is a necessary evil. Eminent domain in definition is “the right or power of public purposes without the owner’s consent on payment of just compensation” (“Eminent Domain History”). Eminent domain has been a part of the United States ever since the constitution was created. Eminent domain is not stated in the constitution. However, it is implied at the end if the Fifth Amendment, " [no person should] be deprived of life, liberty, or property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (U.S. Constitution). Eminent domain is not new to the United States. The first eminent domain case was “in 1879 the Supreme Court, in the case of Boom Co. v. Patterson, (98 U.S. 403) said that eminent domain appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty" (“Draw the Line”). After World War II, eminent domain was used on a regular basis. "In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Berman v Parker that private projects meet the definition if...
Words: 1214 - Pages: 5
...GM520, Legal, Political, and Ethical Dimensions of Business Style of Case and Citations Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) Court Rendering Final Decision U.S. Supreme Court Identification of Parties and Procedural Details Susette Kelo and the other affected property owners (Plaintiff) filled a suit challenging New London's legal authority to take their homes in order to make room for Pfizer and the economic development plan. Discussion of the Facts The City of New London came up with a plan to redevelop an area in which they would develop a state park and other architecturally eclectic homes. Part of the deal included Pfizer corporation who would also put a research facility in the area. The development would match what Pfizer corporation was planning and would also increase revenue, create jobs, and promote the waterfront area. This would then be the start of a much needed revitalization of the rest of the city. The New London Development Corporation and other nonprofit corporations planned to bring in Pfizer with hopes of an economic boost. Statement and Discussion of the Legal Issues in Dispute Kelo and other residents are challenging the New London's legal authority in taking their homes. They are questioning if the property meets the requirements as public use within the means of the Taking Clause and the Fifth Amendment. New London's plan is to develop a 90-acre area on the waterfront near the Fort Trumbull State...
Words: 402 - Pages: 2
...of the constitution, which states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. Long established purposes for the eminent domain power have been for the building of roads and public buildings, but it has become increasingly common for state or local governments to use the power for redevelopment projects. The city of New London, Connecticut established a private development corporation to redevelop a neighborhood near the shore of Long Island Sound with the goal of revitalizing the depressed area. A group of home owners, who lived on the targeted land, including Susette Kelo, decided to fight the issue rather than allow their homes to be destroyed. The Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London established that eminent domain can be used for economic redevelopment projects. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling against the homeowners established that the Fifth Amendment's "public use" requirement is merely a "public purpose" requirement. The City of New London only needed to anticipate that the public will benefit in some way in order to justify a given use of eminent domain. New London anticipated that its redevelopment project would generate local jobs and increase tax revenues, and this was sufficient for the...
Words: 279 - Pages: 2
...Kelo vs City of New London The Kelo vs City of New London case is one that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States with the issue involving eminent domain. Eminent domain is the transfer of property from one private party (Kelo) to a public party (City of New London), with proper compensation. The case brought to light the difference between what is considered to be public use and what is the best public purpose. Susette Kelo and fellow property owners owned property that was condemned by the city of New London to be used as further economic development. The properties were taken from the owners due to the fact a pharmaceutical company named Pfizer Inc, was planning to build a facility in the area which gave the New London Development Corporation the motivation to develop the surrounding area to help increase the current New London economy. The property was to be used as a redevelopment plan which was promised to generate 3,169 new jobs and tax revenues of $1.2 million per year. The court decided in a 5-4 decision that the benefits given to the community outweighed the benefits of Susette Kelo owning the property; the courts determined this as permissible public use under the Fifth Amendment. The City of New London had agreed with Susette Kelo to compensate for moving the Kelo’s house to a new location and substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The property eventually became an empty lot which was then transferred to a city dump due to...
Words: 1437 - Pages: 6
...Contracts Case Study: Property Martha Sparks April 19, 2013 Introduction In this case study, Barney is a client that running into an extreme case of misfortune facing several issues that must be resolved in court. The issues will be outlined below with information to help properly set Barney's expectations of his upcoming battle to keep his possessions. I have grouped the issues based on the calls listed to the attorney in the case study. Issue #1 - mountain property that is currently in process of foreclosing includes a squatter Barney is on his way out to his mountain property to do some fly fishing when he was welcomed by a hostile participant. Barney tried to explain that he had the deed to prove the property belonged to him. The hostile participant responded by saying he had lived on the property for some 20 years and that it belonged to him. According to "North Carolina General Assembly" (2013), "No action for the recovery or possession of real property, or the issues and profits thereof, shall be maintained when the person is in possession thereof, or defendant in action, or those under whom he claims, has possessed the property under known and visible lines and boundaries adversely to all other persons for 20 years..." (1-40. twenty years adverse possession). According to "Court of Appeals of North Carolina" (2013), “the claimant must show actual, open, hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession of the land claimed for the prescriptive period” (para. 12). Ernest...
Words: 1620 - Pages: 7
...contained neither water nor much food. On the 20th day of their ordeal, Dudley and Stevens, without the assistance or agreement of Brooks, cut the throat of the fourth sailor, a 17- or 18-year-old boy. They had not eaten since day 12. Water had been available only occasionally. At the time of the death, the men were probably about 1,000 miles from land. Prior to his death, the boy was lying helplessly in the bottom of the boat. The three surviving sailors ate the boy’s remains for four days, at which point they were rescued by a passing boat. They were in a seriously weakened condition. a. Were Dudley and Stevens guilty of murder? Explain. b. Should Brooks have been charged with a crime for eating the boy’s flesh? Explain. See The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queen’s Bench Division 273 (1884). a. “The facts found on the special verdict shew that the prisoners were not guilty of murder, at the time when they killed Parker but killed him under the pressure of necessity. Necessity will excuse an act which would otherwise be a crime.”(justiceharvard) After reading this I believe that they did what they had to do in order to survive. They said the boy was weak and wouldn’t have made it anyway. They will have to live with the decision they made but they got to live because of it. b. No, he used it as a means to survive. If he would have just killed the boy to kill him and not use his flesh to survive then he would be a murderer. By eating the boy’s flesh he showed...
Words: 665 - Pages: 3
...DISCUSSION BOARD FORUM 3 CASE STUDY Topic: Property Barney has finally decided to retire after many years on the job as a deputy in a small North Carolina town and as a detective in the “big city” of Raleigh, NC. Though Barney sometimes appeared to be a bumbling law enforcement officer, it turns out that he was a dutiful saver and a shrewd investor who now owns an interest in a second home on the North Carolina coast as well as some prime real estate in the North Carolina mountains. Barney purchased the mountain property some 31 years ago as joint tenants with a right of survivorship with his old friends Andy, Floyd, and Howard. All of the friends have passed away, and Barney has not been back to the property in more than 20 years. Andy had apparently indicated in his will that he was leaving his interest in the property to his son Opie, and, a few years back, Opie took out a personal loan using his alleged interest in the property as collateral. When Opie defaulted on the loan last month, the lender initiated a legal action to foreclose on the property. Barney hired an old friend with whom he used to go to church (who is now an attorney in Raleigh) to address the lender’s legal action. The matter is still pending. Remembering that a trout-filled stream ran through the property, Barney decided to do a little fly-fishing. Driving out to the property, Barney was surprised to see smoke rising from the stone chimney of a little cabin that some unknown person had constructed...
Words: 1365 - Pages: 6
...Kеlo v. Cіty of Nеw London Abstract Thе town of Nеw London іs sеаtеd аt thе junctіon of thе Thаmеs Rіvеr аnd thе Long Islаnd Sound іn southеаstеrn Connеctіcut. Dеcаdеs of fіnаncіаl down turn dіrеctеd а stаtе burеаu іn 1990 to dеsіgnаtе thе Cіty а “dіstrеssеd munіcіpаlіty.” In 1996, thе Fеdеrаl Govеrnmеnt shut thе Nаvаl Undеrsеа Wаrfаrе Cеntеr, whіch hаd bееn еstаblіshеd іn thе Fort Trumbull locаlіty of thе Cіty аnd hаd еngаgеd ovеr 1,500 pеoplе. In 1998, thе Cіty’s job loss rаtе wаs аlmost twіcе thаt of thе Stаtе аnd іts communіty of just undеr 24,000 іnhаbіtаnts wаs аt іts smаllеst sіncе 1920. Thеsе sіtuаtіon provokеd stаtе аnd locаlіzеd аgеnts to goаl Nеw London, аnd еspеcіаlly іts Fort Trumbull locаlіty, for fіnаncіаl rеvіtаlіzаtіon. To thіs еnd, rеspondеnt Nеw London Dеvеlopmеnt Corporаtіon (NLDC), а pеrsonаl nonprofіt еntіty еstаblіshеd somе yеаrs prеvіous to аіd thе Cіty іn dеsіgnіng fіnаncіаl dеvеlopmеnt, wаs rеаctіvаtеd. In Jаnuаry 1998, thе Stаtе аuthorіzеd а $5.35 mіllіon bond topіc to support thе NLDC’s dеsіgnіng undеrtаkіngs аnd а $10 mіllіon bond topіc іn thе dіrеctіon of thе crеаtіon of а Fort Trumbull Stаtе Pаrk. In Fеbruаry, thе phаrmаcеutіcаl busіnеss Pfіzеr Inc. broаdcаst thаt іt would construct а $300 mіllіon study fаcіlіty on а locаtіon dіrеctly аdjаcеnt to Fort Trumbull; locаlіzеd plаnnеrs wаntеd thаt Pfіzеr would drаw nеw еntеrprіsе to thе locаlіty, thеrеby аssіstіng аs а cаtаlyst to thе аrеа’s rеjuvеnаtіon. Aftеr obtаіnіng prіmаry аccеptаncе from thе...
Words: 1875 - Pages: 8
...decision came in connection with the Oakland raiders. The Oakland raiders were proposing to move to L.A, but the city of Oakland believed that the Raider's team was associated with the city of Oakland, and at the time it really was. Back In the 1970's and 80's when the raiders were winning games, you couldn't get a ticket to the stadium unless you had season ticket, they were that popular. The city of Oakland said, if we lose the Raiders then it's going to be a bad blow to the morale of the city. They proposed to take the Raiders from Al Davis (the owner of the Raiders) by eminent domain. Al didn't want to sell and it went to court, and the CA supreme court said "we don't see any problem, in theory, with personal property being taken by eminent domain,"; however, they didn't rule the issues on what the city of Oakland proposed to do. The city planned to buy the team from Davis, then sell to individuals who promised they would leave the team in Oakaland. They were going from one private person to another. The CA supreme court didn't deal with issues, they dealt with the issues if eminent domain could be used to take private property as opposed to real property. It ended up going to the trial courts to see if it was legal to sell from one private to another, and the trial court, said no they don't approve taking from one private and selling to another, so the city lost. They...
Words: 362 - Pages: 2
...September 17, 2014 Business 481 Case 3.1 1. Did New London treat Susette Kelo and her neighbors fairly? Assuming that the proposed development would help to revitalize New London, is it just for the city to appropriate private property around Fort Trumbull? a. I believe that New London treated Kelo and her neighbors as fair as they could. The proposed development would hope to attract new development, which would help revitalize the community and bring in tax revenue. I believe it’s just for the city to appropriate private property around Fort Trumbull because of their power of eminent domain. 2. Are towns such as New London and Salina pursuing wise, beneficial, and progressive social policies, or are their actions socially harmful and biased against ordinary working people and small-business owners? a. I believe that New London and Salina are pursuing progressive social policies but their actions are socially harmful to the homeowners of the areas that they are taking over with their eminent domain right. 3. Do you believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government? Explain why or why not. a. I believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government. I feel this way because you are being compensated for your loss of property with either money or land or both. If the area where your home is located is potentially a prime area that could bring in new development and revitalize a community, I think that...
Words: 547 - Pages: 3
...buy her own place, but the money want and cannot replace the memories that she held dear. Mrs. Lemon died at the age of 99 after she had won her lawsuit against one of the biggest hospitals in Georgia. Because of Mrs. Lemon the eminent domain laws have changed in Georgia. One of the ways that the law has changed is that the General Assembly decides when the right of eminent domain may be used. The Georgia Act calls for tougher requirements and procedures for big companies and the government than the law previously permitted. The complete formal changes, aimed for the safety of people that are losing their land and or home and business, will require much more time, effort and payment on the part of both party to make sure agreement with the new procedures. The revised definitions of “public use” are the key to the legislation, however, as in many other states; the idea of “community profit” has been removed from the legal setting for a good reason for condemning the property. Although changes in the law are to give land owners more arguing privileges it as well places extra burdens of evidence on the government to show that...
Words: 760 - Pages: 4
