« Land Use Seminar - April 3, 2008 | Main | Epstein Blogs His New Takings Book »

March 19, 2008

Missouri Supreme Court: Both Large and Small Cities May Use Eminent Domain for Redevelopment

Disappointing news out of the Missouri Supreme Court.  In City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, No. SC88647 (Mar. 18, 2008), the court held that both chartered and non-chartered Missouri cities have the power to use eminent domain to take property for "redevelopment."  The issue in the case was whether Article VI, section 21 of the Missouri Constitution allowed only larger "chartered" cities to use the power.  Background on the case here, and a summary of the issues by the Castle Coalition here.

The court's 6-1 decision is posted here.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1062290/27241320

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Missouri Supreme Court: Both Large and Small Cities May Use Eminent Domain for Redevelopment:

Comments

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

this blog is...

  • devoted to recent developments and commentary on regulatory takings, eminent domain, inverse condemnation, property rights, and Hawaii land use law

Author

events | notices

  • May 14, 2008
    I'll be on the faculty of Integrating Water Law and Land Use Planning in Honolulu. I will be speaking about "Water Rights, Property Rights and the Law of Settled Expectations." Agenda and registration information here

Subscribe

Search


  • web
    inversecondemnation.com


May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Disclaimer

  • This blog is not legal advice. But you knew that already. Reading this blog does not make you a client, nor are any posts or comments on this blog subject to the attorney-client privilege. For legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

    This blog is not sponsored by the author's firm, and the views expressed by the author are just that; they are not the views of his clients, his firm or its clients, or anyone but for the author.

    © 2005-2008. All rights reserved.

Blog powered by TypePad