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 ...
In the inverse condemnation context, it is the property owner who sues the government, alleging a taking (or damaging) of property without just compensation. See San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Diego , 450 U.S. 621, 638 n.2 (1981) (Justice Brennan dissenting); United States v.
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.
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, is a unanimous 1982 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to have his discrimination complaint adjudged by Illinois's Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC), which had dismissed it for its own failure to meet a deadline.
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that limited access to federal court for plaintiffs alleging uncompensated takings of private property under the Fifth Amendment. [1] In June 2019, this case was overruled in part by the Court's decision in Knick v.
Adverse possession in common law, and the related civil law concept of usucaption (also acquisitive prescription or prescriptive acquisition), are legal mechanisms under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property, usually real property, may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation without the permission of its legal owner.
Before 2022, the lawsuit says, authorities told Sanderson on two separate occasions — in 2008 and 2012 — that the statute did not apply to him because his conviction came before the ...
The Condemnation Act was still in force as of 2005. [5] It is currently enacted primarily as section 3113 of Title 40 of the United States Code (2006; section 257 of the 1994 version), with some provisions related to venues and jurisdiction now covered under Title 28 (sections 1358 and 1403).