Verified Document

U.S. Supreme Court: Kelo V. New London Essay

U.S. Supreme Court: Kelo v. New London (2005) Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London involved the issue of eminent domain which is granted to governmental bodies including federal, state and local governmental bodies by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which means that the government is authorized to take land that is privately owned if the land is to be used by the public and the owner is paid a fair price for the land or what is referred to as 'just compensation'. Prior to Kelo v. City of New London the power of eminent domain was typically exercised by cities for acquisition of facilities that were clearly intended for public use such as schools, bridges or freeways. The case of Kelo v. City of New London however, involved what was a "new trend among cities to use eminent domain to acquire land for the redevelopment or revitalization of depressed areas. Basically the use of eminent domain for economic, rather than public purposes." (Longley, 2005, p.1)

Kelo v. City of New London

This case involved the city of New London, Connecticut developing a redevelopment plan that was hoped would result in the creation of jobs and revive the city's downtown areas through generation of increased tax revenues. The property owned identified as Kelo challenged the city's plans even after the city offered just compensation on the basis that the plans of the city for the land failed to constitute 'public use'...

The Eminent Domain Process
The eminent domain process while varying somewhat from one jurisdiction to the other involves the following steps:

(1) Notification of the property owner by mail and followed by a visit from a government employee offering an explanation of why the property is needed;

(2) Government appointment of an independent appraiser to evaluate the land and to come up with a price that is fair to pay the landowner for the land;

(3) Negotiation between the property owner and the government to arrive at a fair price; and (4) Owner is paid the agreed upon price and the property ownership is transferred to the government.

III. Decision in the Case Kelo v. City of New London

The U.S. Supreme Court held in the case of Kelo v. City of New London that that city's "proposed disposition of petitioner's property qualifies as a 'public use' within the meanings of the Taking Clause." (Findlaw, 2012) While the city could not take the land of the petitioner for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular party (Midkiff 467 U.S., at 245) the takings at issue in this case would be "executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals." (Midkiff 467 U.S., at 245)

In addition, even though the city had no…

Sources used in this document:
Bibliography

Kelo v. New London: Lawsuit Challenging Eminent Domain Abuse in New London, Connecticut. (2012) Institute for Justice. Retrieved from: http://www.ij.org/kelo-v-new-london

KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. certiorari to the supreme court of Connecticut. No. 04-108.Argued February 22, 2005 -- Decided June 23, 2005 (2012) Findlaw. Retrieved from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-108

Longley, R. (2012) Court Expands the Power of Eminent Domain. About.com. U.S. Government Info. Retrieved from: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/eminentd.htm

Head, T. (2012) Summary of Kelo v. New London (2005) - Supreme Court Eminent Domain Case. About.com. Civil Liberties. Retrieved from: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freetradeopenmarkets/p/kelovlondon.htm
Cite this Document:
Copy Bibliography Citation

Related Documents

Kelo V. New London Judicial Activism Kelo
Words: 724 Length: 2 Document Type: Essay

Kelo V. New London Judicial Activism Kelo V. City of New London and Judicial Activism Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) analyzes the issue of eminent domain and the circumstances under which a city or government can use this to seize an individual's property. In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), Susette Kelo sued the city of New London claiming that her property, and the properties of

Kelo Eminent Domain: Was the
Words: 2707 Length: 10 Document Type: Term Paper

" The public outcry against the Kelo decision confirms that citizens simply do not trust the government when it comes to their personal property. Definitions and Meanings Justice Sandra Day O'Connor strongly opposed the majority decision (Urbigkit, 2006). She wrote, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with

Pcm Dr. Yale the Supreme
Words: 870 Length: 3 Document Type: Case Study

Most of the owners agreed to sell their property to the city and Kelo was the last holdout. The city then exercised its power of eminent domain and condemned Kelo's property for use in its economic redevelopment plan. Kelo then brought suit in state court claiming that the Government condemned their property in violation of the "public use" clause of the Fifth Amendment. 2. Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision: a.

Eminent Domain
Words: 3670 Length: 10 Document Type: Term Paper

Kelo v. New London and Eminent Domain When the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut in February of 2005, the issue legally speaking was a seemingly straightforward matter of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. What was at stake as a point of Constitutional law was the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, generally referred to as the "takings clause." The actual

Kelo and Terrett
Words: 878 Length: 2 Document Type: Research Paper

Lbs Homework 2 (9/22) Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. 43 (1815) Who is/are the plaintiff(s) (i.e. consumer, company, employee, government) and what type of legal relief is/are the plaintiff(s) seeking? Taylor and other members of the Episcopal church of Alexandria in the parish of Fairfax are seeking the right to sell the lands and apply the proceeds to use by the church. What legal question must the court decide, and what is the common

Case Laws
Words: 2054 Length: 7 Document Type: Research Paper

Slaughterhouse Cases, Takings Clause PART I Slaughterhouse Cases 198 U.S. 45 Lochner v New York 1904 (Oyez, 2013) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Joseph Lochner The People of the State of New York TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FACTS -- Lochner was convicted but he appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that the bakery labor law interfered with an employee's liberty to contract as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.. The employee has the right to substantive due process of

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

Get Started Now