Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Property taken by eminent domain may be for government use or by delegation to third parties, who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, to economic development. The most common uses are for government buildings and other facilities, public utilities , highways and railroads.
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.
Property rights are constructs in economics for determining how a resource or economic good is used and owned, [1] which have developed over ancient and modern history, from Abrahamic law to Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
But in eminent domain cases, fair market value is defined as the highest price obtainable in the open market with the value not being influenced by the imminence of the eminent domain taking. In other words, the property must be valued as if the project for which it is being taken did not exist — this is known as the "project influence" doctrine.
Jul. 29—ROCHESTER — A unanimous four-judge panel of the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division Fourth Department in Rochester has rejected arguments from Niagara Falls Redevelopment ...
The "Takings Clause", the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, limits the power of eminent domain by requiring "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use. It was the only clause in the Bill of Rights drafted solely by James Madison and not previously recommended to him by other constitutional delegates or a state ...
The legal doctrine of eminent domain (also known as compulsory purchase, resumption, compulsory acquisition or expropriation). Subcategories This category has the following 3 subcategories, out of 3 total.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), [1] 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.