The Acquisition, Use, And Disposition Of School Property

CASE CITATION: Kurt HOME and Brenda Home, husband and wife, Appellants, v. NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. JOHN GRAHAM ASSOCIATES, Third-Party Defendants. No. 21696-5-II. (1998)

Several court cases have tested the limits placed on public expenses and the appropriateness of education. The Sacramento City Unified School District

Doe v. Big Walnut Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 837 F. Supp. 2d 742

     The government does not fully provide funding for each school district since public schools are funded through property taxes (“Public”, 1). Therefore, the amount of money for

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

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.

The Problem: Civil In-justice. Approximately every sector of New York’s economy is affected by the threat of virtually open-ended liability created by the state’s current tort laws. Few issues have as great an impact on the bottom line of so many different companies and industries, as well as municipalities, school districts and non-profit groups, throughout the state of New York.

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

Public schools relied on property taxes for funding. Because of this, city schools, now largely segregated, started to

See Electcrostim Med. Servs., Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 962 F. Supp. 2d 887, 898-99 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (granting motion to dismiss); Encompass Office Solutions, Inc. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-02487-L, 2012 WL 3030376, *8-*9 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Team Healthcare/Diagnostic Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Tex., No. 3:10-cv-1441-BH, 2012 WL 1617087, *6 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Mid-Town Surgical Ctr., LLP v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tex., No. H-11-2086 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss); DAC Surgical Partners, P.A. v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., No. H-11-1355, 2011 WL 3841946, *6 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss);

Citation: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit, 1986 795 F2.d 1368, cert. granted, Supreme Court of the United States, Eighth Circuit, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Robert Higgins and Teresa Higgins (the “Higginses”) and Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Richard Hargrove and Kathleen Hargrove (the “Hargroves”), by their respective undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

Every night I would watch her working hard to pass her classes to become a repertory therapist. I would help her study and help her make flash cards and what she was learning about seem very interesting to me. So after a while I would start studying her flash cards with her. She taught me a lot of things.

Ken Mark wrote this case under the supervision of Professor Deborah R. Compeau solely to provide material for class discussion.

2. Describe briefly the history of the litigation of this case (which courts heard the case, which way did they rule, what court is now deciding the case, which judges are hearing the case in this court)?