Kelelo V. City Of New London Case Digest

Philip J. Cooper v. Charles Austin 837 S. W. 2d 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)

As a matter of fact, buildings play a very important role in the life of American people. A building can be a home where a family makes memories and survives challenges. A building can house a business that a person built from nothing and now provides a living for them and their employees. A building can be a church where people gather to worship and offer support to one another. The act of eminent domain gives the government the power to take over these

The majority opinion I feel like changed the way they looked at the Fifth Amendment to the best public purpose not the best public use of the land in order to justify their ruling. I also feel like their ruling left the door open to many more eminent domain cases because they didn’t create a fine line between what was to be considered to be legal and illegal. I feel like the minority was also correct in saying that this will be considered the norm and therefor taking away the rights given to property owners through the constitution. I also couldn’t find anywhere that it was stated that there were negotiations for the property; I did find in an article that the plaintiffs in the case were not hold outs. Either the NLDC should have purchased the property rights from the owners or the City of New London should have to achieve the most efficient

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

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.

Parties: Parminder Kaur & Amanjit Kaur (Petitioners) v. New York State Urban Development Corporation (Respondent)

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.

The Daily Record Staff. "Legal Opinions - U.S. Supreme Court: October 14, 2008." Daily Record, The; Baltimore, Md.. 14 Oct. 2008 eLibrary. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.

The city of New London Connecticut had made economic recovery efforts to sustain a severely downtrodden local economy. Those efforts included a plan to acquire 115 parcels of real estate in order to redevelop an area of commercial, residential and recreational elements. The plan consisted of removing homes to build a new development in order to create jobs, increase tax revenue, and better allow for the city to

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

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

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

No. The Court’s ruling was 7-0 in favor of the mayor and city council of Baltimore.