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
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
Words: 285 - Pages: 2
5th amendment continued...... The government can't take agricultural property (branches, farms, barns) in California, for one person, and then sell to a private person. Founding fathers had in mind of eminent domain as in real property (land), and not other types of usages for eminent domain, like the attempt to take personal property. In CA, our supreme court they don't see a distinction between personal and real property from the standpoint of eminent domain. Examples: The CA decision
Words: 362 - Pages: 2
Logan Armbruster 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
Words: 547 - 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
Words: 1365 - Pages: 6
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
Words: 760 - Pages: 4
Student name Institution name Date Introduction Question: Is the policy of eminent domain providing for the public welfare, through the taking of privately owned property, using a rightful procedure involving due process and just compensation as it was intended to do when the policy was founded? Eminent domain is the inherent power of the government to take over a citizen's property for public use without the owner's consent. Initially, this public policy originated in the Middle Ages throughout
Words: 3810 - Pages: 16
Buss Law: Lindgren vs. GDT, LLC (96-98) Plaintiff: Lindgren/GDT, LLC Defendant: GDT, LLC/ Lindgren Facts: Lindgren came-up with an accessory concept, which she sold online and in a store in Iowa. She patented it in 2000. GDT started selling a product quite similar to hers at much higher prices through all of its distribution channels. When Lindgren found out she filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Iowa against GDT for infringement. GDT, claiming that it has no affiliation with the
Words: 4325 - Pages: 18
This document includes the cases and articles listed below in italics. You may find some of the principles described in the articles useful in doing your analysis of the cases. Velasquez, Distributive Justice Rich Dead, Poor Dead Kelo vs. City of New London _____________________________________________________________________________ Distributive Justice Manuel Velasquez Questions of distributive justice arise when different people put forth conflicting claims on society's benefits
Words: 12435 - Pages: 50
can./Marbury v. Madison, 1803 introduced judicial review Activism v. Restraint- Over time, not a liberal vs. conservative issue.In the early days of the New Deal, judicial activism was responsible for striking down progressive measures. Originalism v. Living- When interpreting the Constitution, ask what the people who wrote it – or wrote the amendments – understood the provisions to mean. VS. To interpret the Constitution look to the language in the document and the understanding of the framers
Words: 2002 - Pages: 9
