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.
In the two- and three-domain systems, this puts them into a separate domain. There is a great deal of diversity in the domain Bacteria. That diversity is further confounded by the exchange of genes between different bacterial lineages. The occurrence of duplicate genes between otherwise distantly-related bacteria makes it nearly impossible to ...
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 ...
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.
Economists distinguish between nationalization and socialization, which refers to the process of restructuring the economic framework, organizational structure, and institutions of an economy on a socialist basis. By contrast, nationalization does not necessarily imply social ownership and the restructuring of the economic system.
He firmly stated, however, that eminent domain could not be used by the government to take private property for the purpose of improving economic or aesthetic conditions of neighborhoods. Therefore, he granted the government's motion to dismiss but also raised the seriousness of using eminent domain to serve broad redevelopment projects.
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.