Mountain Property Case Summary

Eminent domain in definition is “the right or power of public purposes without the owner’s consent

If there is no other way to handle the situation, then the legal owners should be compensated monetarily for the loss of the physical property and any loss of revenue. On the Other hand, those in the judicial system claiming that eminent domain aids in the capture and conviction of criminals who could be a danger to society. They state that in many instances imposing eminent domain gives them the right to search and seize property, thus gathering evidence to convict criminals and placing the property out of their reach for future use. In conclusion, the topic of eminent domain is one that people have strong feelings about because it has long term effects on those involved. There can be many emotions involved since it involves money and

America's government system is powerful. One way the government flexes their muscles is through eminent domain. Eminent domain is the government's power to seize land from one and give it over to another. Most times, eminent domain is used to improve the city. There are a lot of tensions between whether eminent domain is morally right or even constitutional.

Eminent Domain is the government's right under the Fifth Amendment to acquire privately owned property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse. Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's determined to be fair market value. In recent years, there has been much debate over the appropriateness of eminent domain, and further its legality in specific instances. The government is allowed to seize personal property for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good". There have been many cases brought up against the government in attempt to regulate the government's power in seizing private property. There is a political push for reform to the eminent

Imagine getting a visitor at your front door, and the visitor offers you a very generous amount of money for them to take you property for public use. For some people it is the property they grew up on, and for others it is the property that has been passed down through family generations. That is what happens when private property owners experience eminent domain. Eminent domain can be a wonderful thing for big companies and powerful leaders. On the other hand, people lose their homes, or perhaps their farmland. Those who offer eminent domain often have big plans that can benefit a community, but the huge loss here is people losing their homes. Most companies will only enforce eminent domain if they have no other choice. Other companies do it purely for themselves. Eminent domain should be used for the good of mankind, because it has the power to put some good places in this world if done correctly.

On March 21, 2015, Reuters reported that the King Pine lift at Sugarloaf Mountain Ski Resort malfunctioned. Nine chairs travelled backwards on the cable, injuring seven people; three of whom required hospitalization for non-threatening injuries. Sugarloaf experienced a similar incident on December 28, 2010. (Cavalier, 2015) Bangor Daily News reported that eight individuals were hospitalized for injuries as a result of the derailment of the Spillway East chairlift. Rick Tounge, one of the eight injured, stated, “I think we’re pretty conscious of the risk we think we’re taking (in skiing), and that involves trees and other skiers and that stuff. You don’t expect the chair to try and kill you.” (Portland Press Herald, 2011) Michael Katz filed suit against Sugarloaf Mountain Resort on the following six causes of action: I. negligence, II. common carrier liability, III. strict product liability, IV. breach of warranty, V. loss of consortium, VI. punitive damages. The defendants moved for dismissal of claims II, III, and IV. The Superior Court of Maine granted the motion to dismiss claims III and IV but denied the motion to dismiss on claim II. (Michael and Patricia Katz et al v. CNL Lifestyle Properties et al).

Eminent domain is the inherent power of the government to take over a citizen's property for public use without the owner's consent. Initially, this public policy originated in the Middle Ages throughout the world. It became part of the British common law before reaching the United States where it was then illustrated in the US Constitution in 1791 (Britannica: eminent domain). The Fifth Amendment granted the federal government the right

The taking of land refers “to government seizure, regulation, or intrusion on private property for which the owner is entitled to compensations under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). There is also regulatory takings, which is the “newly enforceable restrictions on the use of ones property, such as a newly adopted restrictions on building in certain areas of wetlands.” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). All over the world governments take private land from its owners to benefit the public. In the United States it is called emanated domain, and has been a controversial issue till this day. By evaluating the case of Lucas V South Carolina Coastal Council of 1992 and evaluating the two types of regulatory action that automatically trigger compensation as takings; the dissent object to the takings approach laid out by the majority in this case; cities ability to take private property and transfer it to private developers for the sake of economic revitalization; the ethical issues surrounding the principle of using eminent domain to take away the property ownership rights of individuals; and the feeling I would have if the government was to take my land.

To remain in the positive area of eminent domain, most of the time this law is not used until the last possible resort. Many opportunities are given to a person or land owner to take compensation in various amounts and give up the land. It’s not something that happens after five minutes of the arrival of the government. It is part of a process and in most areas that process involves a vote by the elected officials in the area, which includes the residents of the area being affected by it. The negative area is easy to see. Part of the Bill of Rights states that “restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime” (Bill of Rights). That means that the army can’t force you to put some soldiers up in your house for the night. Eminent domain is an extension of that action. The government is taking the property and using it as they see fit to use. In most areas eminent domain simply showed up on the books and there was never a word said about it. It was not heard of in some areas until the government used it and put it to action. In order for this to become a positive action some say that more controls and restrictions are needed to be placed upon the laws. It was a set of laws that was needed and enacted and then, as a result, many smaller government areas took advantage of it and began to abuse it. The best way to move forward may not be

Martin had been a blundering law enforcement officer. He chose to resign after numerous years as a deputy in a little North Carolina town and as a criminologist in Raleigh. Martin possesses an interest property in the mountain district of North Carolina and additionally a second home in the shore of North Carolina (Property Case Study). He conveyed three properties issues to me to advise him on. As Martin sister in Christ and his lawful counsel, I must exhort him that there are laws, guidelines and regulations that identify with his property circumstance he is confronting. Here is my evaluation of Martin’s three properties (Mountain, Coastal, and Personal Property).

Eminent domain is the power that the government has to take private property for public or private use. It is defined by the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution which states the “right of people to not be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of the law”. When the government uses eminent domain, they must pay a fair price for the property taken, however, this leads to many disputes and issues. For example, if a city wants to knock down an old neighborhood of houses to build new condominiums, they need compensation. Without compensation, it is written in the Constitution that it would be prohibited. Although Republicans will normally support eminent domain if it is beneficial financially, they have and are trying to limit

Eminent domain allows for government, railroads, utility and redevelopment companies to take possession of private property for public use. Parks, military bases, distribution centers, railroads, and airports are all acceptable intended purposes to obtain private property through eminent domain. An organization or company try to obtain private property must following a specific process, according Missouri state law. First the condemner must try to obtain the property outside of court. They will need to issue a letter to the property owner which includes the following:

These days there have been many issues surrounding the topic of private property and eminent domain. I feel that eminent domain is a good way to keep the needs of the community and each person’s individual property rights balanced. Even though I believe individual property rights are more important that the needs of the community, I also believe the government sometimes has to take that property away for the better good of the community. At the same time I also understand how people feel when they talk about “NIMBY” (not in my back yard), and also about their personal needs.

It is stated that Sierra Club sued to block a lease that was granted by the Secretary of the Interior for the use of federal land for the purpose of leasing the land for a ski area. Not much information was provided about the case. However, it sounds like the reason Sierra Club sued to block the lease is that of the potential competition that was coming into the area. Considering this piece of land is federal property, there is such thing as a Property Clause. “The Property Clause gives Congress authority to do as they will with the land, territories or other property of the United States” (Alexander & Gorte, 2007, p. 2).

It is hard to say if this dispute will ever be resolved. Neither Canada nor Denmark want to budge when it comes to giving up claim to Hans Island. If either side really wanted to push their claim, they do have options. The first option is bilateral negotiations (Glassner and Fahrer 315; Thomas 81). What this means is that the Canada and Denmark would have official negotiations to settle the dispute. They could potentially bring in a neutral third party (such as another country) to mediate the negotiations. The next option is use a third party to create a resolution that both Canada and Denmark must agree to (Thomas 81). This is much more formal process and fairly uncommon as most disputes are settled using bilateral negotiations. The final option is to go before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (Glassner and Fahrer 318; Thomas 81). This option is very rarely used and only when the other two options have been tried and failed.