Lucas V. South Carolina Coastal Council Case Study

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.

FACTS: Graham, 16 years old, was sentenced to three years' probation, with the first year to be served in the county jail. Less than six months after being released, he was arrested for a home-invasion robbery with two accomplices. After that, he was sentenced to life imprison without the possibility of parole.

obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court

Facts: Plaintiffs Carl and Elaine Miles, owners and impresarios of “Blackie, The Talking Cat” brought a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the S.D. Georgia, challenging the constitutionality of the Augusta, GA, Business License Ordinance. They complained that the ordinance was inapplicable in their case “accepting contributions from pedestrian in the downtown Augusta area, who wanted to hear the cat speak “and that the ordinance violates the rights of speech. The Plaintiffs attacked the ordinance as being unconstitutional and overbroad in contravention of the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The “Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County” case is about a lawsuit filed by Mr. Bryce Zimpfer

The project was unable to obtain investments and its plans were abandoned in the end. The promises of new jobs and an increased tax revenue were all forsaken. Today, the property that was once a neighborhood for families, is a vacant property with no beneficial purpose to the community that it was meant to serve. American’s view of eminent domain, because of the Susette Kelo case, have changed dramatically since seeing the results from the economic project in New London. More Americans believe that eminent domain should only be exercised in the case of benefiting the public and not for the purpose of advancing economic activities of private parties. The case of Kelp V. New London explains how important it is as public administrators to view and interpret policies to make better decisions on how the process of implementation can better serve the needs of society for the greater

In 1986, David H. Lucas purchased two residential lots with the intention of building single-family homes on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, [p1007] South Carolina. Two years later in 1988 the South Carolina Legislature barred Lucas from erecting permanent habitable structures on his land for erosion and destruction prevention purposes under the Beachfront Management Act thus making Lucas’ property valueless. Lucas sued the state agency for the deprivation of viable economic use for the parcels and under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments was seeking

In the case of the State of North Carolina v. Lester Gerard Packingham, the question of whether a state can restrict sex offender’s from being on social media sites without restricting their constitutional rights is played out. Lester Packingham is a registered sex offender who was caught having a Facebook website profile even though it is against North Carolina state law. This paper will explore the constitutionality of N.C. Gen Stat. § 14–202.5 (2011) and will analyze the legal opinions of this case from both the Court of Appeals of North Carolina and Supreme Court of North Carolina and make an educated decision on whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision should be upheld or reversed.

North Carolina, the concurrence states, “If the statue is genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the officer’s judgement requires hard interpretive work, then the officer has made a reasonable mistake.” Based on this statement, it gives us support to consider whether Officer Raymond’s stop was objectively reasonable or not. Also, The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of people to be secure in their persons houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be secured, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In the history of the United States Supreme Court, there are a multitude of cases that have left an indelible mark in the tapestry of American history, culture, and society. Among these landmark disputes may be found issues as divisive as reproductive health, fundamental economic freedoms, the power of the Supreme Court and, of course, race. Among these, Dred Scott v. Sanford occupies a special place. Often called as the “worst decision made by the Supreme Court”, Dred Scott v. Sanford provided an impetus for slavers to continue an injustice that had existed since the colonial era . By deciding the way it did, the United States Supreme Court also created a divide between the northern and southern states – a divide so great that it eventually led to the American Civil War. Such an enormous effect on the sentiment of the times warrants a closer look at the decisions of the justices involved in the Dred Scott decision. Doing so will also shed light into the intricate logic behind the justices’ decisions – essentially the reasons why they concurred or dissented from the main opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The process of interrogating the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution will also reveal the fundamental societal sentiment regarding slavery and African Americans at the time.

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.

The Just Compensation Clause is under the Fifth Amendment in the constitution. There is much controversy that surrounds the Compensation Clause because even though the property owner is being compensated for their land, they are still losing their land without any say in the matter. The constitution states “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,” proving that the government can take what they want as long as they pay the amount of money that they think is right.

Throughout history one can look through cases to find where race played a part tin the conviction and sentencing of a case. However, in the case of Georgia vs. Dixon did race play a part in convicting Dixon? Did the jury know what they were doing? Was the sentencing initial to give a harsher charge? By looking at the facts of the case, legally defining all the charges, and explain the outcome and the issues that surrounded the case one can answer the basis of these questions.

In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) Mr. John Barron (Plaintiff), sued the city of Baltimore, Maryland (Defendant) for taking his property without compensation. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had ruined his wharf in the Baltimore Harbor by redirecting the streams by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project (1). The plaintiff argued that the city’s activities had made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most water crafts. As a result, the plaintiff felt his Fifth Amendment right had been violated because the government took his property without just compensation. The state court of Maryland ruled that the city of Baltimore had unconstitutionally disadvantaged

“In 2008, police arrested an estimated 2.1 million persons under the age of 18. The majority of these juveniles (67%) were referred to juvenile court jurisdiction. The police used discretion to handle and release a portion (22%) of these youths” (Lopez 2016). That means that 273,000 juveniles were prosecuted and punished as adults, some even receiving life in prison. This begs the question should juveniles, regardless of offense, be tried as adults?