20120803_134704
Here are the cases and links that I discussed at today’s ABA session on eminent domain:

  • Kelo – Remember the holding of the case: the Court majority rejected the petitioners’ call to adopt a blanket rule that all takings supported only by claims of economic development violate the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In declining to adopt the rule, the Court left open challenges based on lack of a comprehensive plan, claims that the advanced public use is a pretext to hide a predominant private purpose, and the old “A-to-B” private taking.
  • City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) – The case in which the court held that the city’s resolution of necessity was so “nondescript [and] amorphous,” and “so vague, uncertain and sweeping in scope that it failed to specific the ‘public use’ for City sought acquisition of the property.”
  • Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone (Pa. 2007) – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the power of a local government to take property “for any legitimate purpose,” notwithstanding statutory language that did not extend authority to the town to take property for “open space.”  However, the court struck down the attempted taking because the evidence showed that the real purpose of the taking was something other than the Township’s stated reason. 
  • Township of Readington v. Solberg Aviation Co. (NJ App. Div. 2009) – A New Jersey appellate court held that a municipality abused its condemnation power when it attempted to take property to thwart the expansion of a nearby airport. The court concluded that a pretext challenge should be based on objective evidence, not only on the statements of the municipality and its officials.
  • Rick Rayl’s posts on the California Eminent Domain Report analyzing the proposals to use eminen domain to take underwater mortgages. Start here and read all of them. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *