Case Analysis : Kelo V. New London

The Kelo vs City of New London case is one that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States with the issue involving eminent domain. Eminent domain is the transfer of property from one private party (Kelo) to a public party (City of New London), with proper compensation. The case brought to light the difference between what is considered to be public use and what is the best public purpose. Susette Kelo and fellow property owners owned property that was condemned by the city of New London to be used as further economic development. The properties were taken from the owners due to the fact a pharmaceutical company named Pfizer Inc, was planning to build a facility in the area which gave the New

Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder, in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19, subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed, and argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it must find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the acts that constituted the past pattern of child abuse and he also argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove past pattern of child abuse

Amongst topics of conversation regarding eminent domain, one will find regulatory usage of land, seizing of land for public use, and the most controversial of late, the seizing of land from a private owner and giving it to a more economically beneficial, often politically connected private owner. Kelo v New London (US 2005), has prompted dozens of proposals to reform eminent domain practices legislatively. Most of these proposals would restrict the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private individual to another. It is one thing to have a city claim property to further the development of the city by building roads, schools, etc. It is another thing altogether for the government to seize a property so as to gain money from higher taxation. For many years, however, courts have read the public-use restraint broadly, enabling governments to take property from one owner, often small and powerless, and transfer it to another, often large and politically connected, all in the name of economic development, urban renewal, or job creation.

In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O., the student’s purse was searched after the principal had reasonable suspicion that she had cigarettes in her purse since she was caught smoking in the bathroom. The court decision in this case concluded that teachers are acting as agents for the state and are therefore allowed to search if they have reasonable suspicion. Students do have the Fourth Amendment right as all people in America have. However, student’s expectation of privacy has to be balanced with the needs of the school to maintain the educational environment. Schools do not have to obtain a warrant to search, but must have reasonable suspicion in order to search a student’s person or property.

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The Court of Claims held that there was a taking, and entered judgment for respondent, one judge dissenting.” They argued that “Although there have been no airplane accidents on respondents' property, there have been several accidents near the airport and close to respondents' place. These are the essential facts found by the Court of Claims. On the basis of these facts, it found that respondents' property had depreciated in value. It held that the United States had taken an easement over the property on June 1, 1942, and that the value of the property destroyed and the easement taken was $2,000.” He said that that old common law doctrine said that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe “has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the

The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

In the Kelo case, Legal Reasoning was prevalent in application of law to the outcome of the decision. Justice Stevens followed the guidelines that it was the courts duty to determine the wisdom of the government’s attempt to exercise eminent domain, and that the court should not allow its decision to be deviated by the hardship that one might incur when unwillingly relinquishing their home or property. The large media influence on the Kelo strengthened the importance of Legal Reasoning even more. The court found it necessary to remove all emotions involved in listening about an individual that was about to lose the home that they had lived in their entire life and make a decision that would be for the better good of the people.

With reference to the case of the Kelo v. city of New London, the court ruled that the government should take private property through eminent domain for public use. This is due to the provisions of Fifth Amendment of the U.S constitution. New London, Connecticut, could exercise eminent domain for economic development. New London, Connecticut, was experiencing hard economic times majorly due to the closure of the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which was the major employer in the region. This prompted a decrease in the tax base and population in general. This made the city leaders desperate for some development in the city’s economy. Afterwards, a pharmaceutical giant Pfizer started to construct a facility used for research in the outskirts of New London. This was the only chance for the city to activate the

* The State Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the use of eminent domain for economic development did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions.

New London’s economic development plan revolved around attracting new businesses to the city in order to create more jobs and increase tax revenues to stimulate the economy. The project partnered with the Pfizer corporation to construct an urban center that includes hotels, restaurants and other recreational facilities to bring in business ventures. The majority of the local population of New London supported Susette Kelo and her neighbor’s argument that the seizing of land for the transference to NLDC was not an example of a public use and believe that the policy of eminent domain was a violation of property rights because it’s implementation was a misrepresentation of the constitution. Under the guidance of governor John Rowland, who wished to gain political approval by implementing more development projects across Connecticut, the local government of New London delegated the power of eminent domain to NLDC in order to take the burden off them and avoid confrontation with the majority democratic city. This proved effective because the NLDC is a private, nonprofit, agency who is not answerable or accountable to the public. The supreme court remained affirmed to their duty of protecting and implementing the constitution and believed that the government of New London had the authority to exercise their power of eminent domain in order to complete their economic development project,

New York City 1978 and Kelo vs. City of New London. In the Penn Central vs. New York City 1978 Penn Central Transportation Company wanted to construct a very tall office tower above its already existing railroad station and smaller office building, known as Grand Central Terminal. The Commission ruled that Penn Central could not go through with the project because the new development would change the existing landmark way too much. Penn Central sued in court, saying that the city's regulation of landmarks amounted to an Eminent Domain Clause "taking" of their private property rights. They said if the city was allowed to regulate them in this way, they should be compensated according to the 5th Amendment Eminent Domain Clause. At the end The Supreme Court ruled against Penn Central. The Court said first of all that there is no set procedure for ruling when an economic loss. Another case that changed the eminent domain was Kelo vs. City of New London. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that a city could seize land, through the use of the Eminent Domain Clause, private homes that were in good condition, and transfer them to another private property developer, for a local economic development project. The home owners then sued the city, claiming that the only reason for taking their land was not for "public use," as required by the Eminent Domain Clause, but rather for private use

Facts: New London used their authority to take other individuals private property to try and sell them to some other private developers. The city of New London also thought that is was a great idea so that it could promote new jobs and that the tax revenues could increase. Kelo whose property was taken from them along with others ended up suing New London in the state court. The owners of the property’s that was taken believed that their Fifth Amendment right was violated, which gave them assurance the government couldn’t take their private property for the use of public without restitution. However the owners of the property put up a good argument about trying to take their private property to try and sell it to other private developers was

In 2005 one of the most divisive cases we had ever heard on the Supreme Court occurred—Kelo v. City of New London. After a decade of the 5-4 decision I still get questions about this case. By far eminent domain has been one of most complex and controversial aspects of in our nation’s history.

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.