Ad
related to: government condemnation of property rights
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Inverse condemnation is a term which describes a claim brought against the government in which a property owner seeks compensation for a `taking' of his property under the Fifth Amendment. In states that prohibit uncompensated taking or damaging, physical damage to property is included in this definition.
The term "condemnation" is used to describe the formal act of the exercise of the power of eminent domain to transfer title to the property from its private owner to the government. This use of the word should not be confused with its sense of a declaration that property is uninhabitable due to defects.
An Act to authorize the condemnation of lands for sites for public buildings, and other purposes (25 Stat. 357), commonly known as the Condemnation Act or the Act of August 1, 1888, is a federal statute adopted by the 50th United States Congress and signed into law on August 1, 1888, which authorizes federal officials to seek eminent domain condemnation of land for the purpose of erecting ...
In a jaw-dropping argument, the Department of Justice claims seizing $50,000 from a small business doesn’t violate property rights because money isn’t property.
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 ...
That sort of broad deference, Bowers argues in a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up his case, nullifies the Fifth Amendment's "public use" requirement for government takings of ...
Nov. 17—The rail agency's planned condemnation of property at 1829 Dillingham Blvd. also will force a nearly 60-year-old business to relocate. The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation's ...
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.