The State Supreme Court held that the use of eminent domain for economic development did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Zarella wrote the dissent, joined by Chief Justice William J. Norcott, Jr., joined by Justices David M. 1, SC16742) on March 9, 2004, siding with the city in a 4–3 decision, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Flemming L. The state court issued its decision (268 Conn. The Connecticut Supreme Court heard arguments on December 2, 2002. The plaintiffs argued that economic development, the stated purpose of the taking and subsequent transfer of land to the New London Development Corporation, did not qualify as a public use under the Fifth Amendment. nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this limitation also applies to the actions of state and local governments. The power of eminent domain is limited by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The owners, including lead plaintiff Susette Kelo of 8 East Street, sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its eminent domain power. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in favor of the City of New London. Īfter the Court's decision, the city allowed a private developer to proceed with its plans however, the developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the project, and the contested land remained an undeveloped empty lot. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as " public use". In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan". 469 (2005), 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. O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Supreme Court of Connecticut decision affirmed.Ĭhief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut 13, 2002) affirmed and reversed in part, remanded, 268 Conn. Judgment for defendants as regarding certain plaintiffs, judgment for remaining plaintiffs, Kelo v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |