Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The case laid the foundation for the Court's later important public use cases, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) and Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Critics of recent occurrences of eminent domain uses trace what they view as property rights violations to this case.
Case history; Prior: 608 F.2d 563 (vacated and remanded): Holding; In a Title VII discrimination claim, the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff throughout the trial; a shift to a defendant's burden is merely an intermediate evidentiary burden requiring the defendant to sustain only the burden of production, not the burden of persuasion.
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. , 576 U.S. 519 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act . [ 1 ]
Usually, the state of Texas wins eminent domain cases. But in the case of Fairfield Lake State Park, the state was beat out by a private developer from Dallas. Here’s how.
DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on April 16, 2024. [1] [2] The case dealt with the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence. Because the case touched on whether or not the 5th Amendment is self-executing, the case had implications for Trump v.
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 the plaintiff ...
Most states use the term eminent domain, but some U.S. states use the term appropriation or expropriation (Louisiana) as synonyms for the exercise of eminent domain powers. [47] [48] The term condemnation is used to describe the formal act of exercising the power to transfer title or some lesser interest in the subject property.
That view ended in 1896 when, in the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago case, the court held that the eminent domain provisions of the Fifth Amendment were incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus were now binding on the states, or in other words, when the states take private property ...