Case Study On The Kelo Case

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

The Plaintiff contests that orders to restrain the Plaintiff’s land use [8] by Pain J in the Land and Environment Court of NSW in 2005 constituted the ‘violation of correct legal procedures’ [14] and hence professional negligence, because the case was previously dismissed by Lloyd J [5].

The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last century. Until this decision, the rights against illegal search and

| 21 |LO 4 |Basis for inherited property: community property vs common law | |Unchanged | 21 |

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.

Because of Mr. Lucas’ right to life, liberty and property provided by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, he felt he was entitled to “just compensation” for his land which he purchased legally.

Land has been an integral part of culture since the beginning of time. From the Homestead Act to the modern real estate development age we care about where we live. We showed in the American Revolution that we are willing to fight for the land we love. However, under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment we are prevented from this specific action, fighting for something we love. The Takings Clause states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (US Const. Amend. V, sec. 3) The fifth amendment fails to protect the individual from the unjust seizure of land from the government, for there is no clause that allows for protecting one’s land if not compelled to sell. Even when given the right, the government, as seen through past landmark cases, has a very crooked definition of public use.

Throughout the course of having the opportunity to take VA and US Government class, I've learned so much about the American society. For example, how the government works, learning about important people that are part of the Democratic and Republican parties, and getting a better understanding on why we are considered one of the most powerful countries in the world. The US Government we have today has indeed both changed and impacted American society. I decided to pick and research the Kelo v City of New London case. In their article “ Summary of Kelo v New London,” National Conference of State Legislatures (2018) states that the “public use” plan of a clause that is the “takings clause” of the 5th Amendment, it grants the use of high ranked territory for economic development purposes that supports a public benefit. It basically argued that New London, Connecticut decided to overpower the right to seize private property to sell private developers. However, the property owners argued taking private property to sell private developers was not public use.

We all do our best to protect what is ours, but how far will we go to do that and will it justify our reasons behind our actions? Whether it’s protecting our properties and possessions, or family or even ourselves, situations get out of hand and we are faced with making decisions that could change our lives and the lives of those around us. The tiniest detail can determine ones actions as justifiable or unjustifiable. For Don Luis Ceballos and Judy-Ann Laws Norman their actions of defense were unjustifiable according to a jury.

In theory, one would believe that this was the case that advanced Black Americans rights and should have set the precedent for similar cases after, however, it was far from that. This

I believe that PPCW v. ACLA is very relevant to true threats. Throughout this case, the Court had to

Moving on let’s discuss, for a moment, that the hybrid rights claim is viable. A claim that may be used when a

Facts of the case: Decades of economic decline, led the city of New London to declare a “distressed municipality”, with the unemployment rate doubled, the city of New London approved an “economic revitalization” plan, and authorized a non-profit organization; New London Development Corporation (NDCL) to take the development plan into action. Pfizer announced a plan to build a research facility in the Fort Trumbull area, which was home to 115 private properties. These properties are being taken by New London, and just compensation is to be given to the owners. Susette Kelo (Plaintiff) sued the city of New London and NDCL (Defendant) on grounds that the ‘public use’ restriction in the Fifth Amendment was being violated by the takings of private property. The defendants argued that the development plan was an opportunity to attract new businesses opportunities to the area, although it wouldn’t be open to the public, it would serve public purpose. A first trial prohibited New London from taking the properties, but an appeal from the State Supreme Court granted permission to take the properties. A second appeal by Kelo to the Supreme Court, was affirmed by 5-4 in favor of the State Supreme Court.

This is a constitutional issue because this case goes against the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment states the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,

The Kronos access for Lee Brown (101873), mirrored after Kristin Crouse as per request, has been done.