TAILIEUCHUNG - Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 4 P16

Gale Encyclopedia of American Law Volume 4 P16 fully illuminates today's leading cases, major statutes, legal terms and concepts, notable persons involved with the law, important documents and more. Legal issues are fully discussed in easy-to-understand language, including such high-profile topics as the Americans with Disabilities Act, capital punishment, domestic violence, gay and lesbian rights, physician-assisted suicide and thousands more. | EMINENT DOMAIN 139 power of eminent domain to acquire the remainder of the property from unwilling owners in exchange for just compensation. One of the areas sought to be condemned was Fort Trumbell where Susette Kelo and eight other persons lived in their homes. They challenged the city s development plan arguing that the condemnation of private property for the purpose of giving that property to another private entity did not constitute a public use under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court rejected their takings claims. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice john paul stevens the Court acknowledged that the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents the government from condemning a piece of private property and giving it to another private party when the only benefit conferred is a private one. Nor does the Fifth Amendment permit the government to take private property under the mere pretext of a public purpose Stevens observed when its actual purpose is to bestow a private benefit. However the Court said that the meaning of public use is not necessarily confined to use by the public as when the power of eminent domain is used to condemn private property to make room for a public highway or a state park. Instead the Court said the public-use requirement is also satisfied when the condemned property is used for a public purpose. In this case the Court found that government officials had carefully formulated an economic development plan that they believed would provide appreciable benefits to the community including but not limited to new jobs and increased tax revenue. It is appropriate for the Court Stevens wrote to resolve the challenges of the individual owners not on a piecemeal basis but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment. In reaching its decision the Court relied on Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 467 .

• Lĩnh vực khác
• Từ điển ngành luật
• thuật ngữ pháp lý
• luật pháp Hoa Kỳ
• các đạo luật
• điều khoản pháp lý
• luật dân sự
• luật liên bang
• văn bản pháp luật
• tài liệu pháp lý
• Từ điển tiếng Hàn
• Từ vựng tiếng Hàn
• Từ vựng tiếng Hàn theo chủ đề
• Tiếng Hàn căn bản
• Từ vựng tiếng Hàn về chuyên ngành Luật
• Từ vựng tiếng Hàn về xã hội