Laws Of Boundary: The Constitutional Law Of The United States

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.

Reasoning: Determining jurisdiction is critical because jurisdiction not only allows the party to know whether that court is entitled to adjudicate a dispute, but it can also help determine which laws are applicable, which can make a difference in a party's recovery. For example, Georgia and Delaware might have different laws regarding damages so that Elle may have an advantage in one court as compared to another court. In order for a court to be able to exercise jurisdiction, the court must have some connection to either the parties or to the event in question. Therefore, the possibilities for jurisdiction include: the district court for the state of Georgia, the district court for the state of Delaware, or one of the state courts for either Georgia or Delaware. In order for federal jurisdiction to apply, the circumstances of the case must meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction refers to that federal court jurisdiction involved when the parties involved are from two

Clear identification of the location of construction and areas proposed to be disturbed and their relation to property lines, buildings, roads, and waterbodies within one hundred (100) feet.

A federal court's power to hear any case where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction is one of the two main types of subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court.

The dual court system permits the federal administration restricted access into each jurisdiction problems and state law is not allowed to be involved in the federal judicial system, without there being some type of encounter at the state or federal stages. Federal courts have the authority to resolve only the cases in which the Constitution allows them to have power over. These types of courts are to be found in the bigger only; specific cases are allowed to be received within the federal courts. For instances, the cases that are allowed to be viewed in the federal courts are cases that include the United States government and other officers that are being sued. The dual court system is not the only part of the story, each level there is a different court chain of command. States often have limited jurisdiction courts, such as traffic courts, trial courts and appellate courts, and supreme courts (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2011). Each trial court adjudicates different offenses. Appellate courts consider different matters depending on where they lie in the court hierarchy. Appeals from state courts can sometimes be heard in the federal courts. Higher-level courts can control the actions and decisions of lower courts, but not the other way around. Despite the apparent complexity, each court has its place. The main focus of the court system is to uphold the law, protect citizens and their rights and resolving

In the case of Margolin v. Novelty Now the appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. In personal jurisdiction the book states that the courts are given the power to provide a decision in affecting the rights of individuals (Kubasek). In this case, the court will give a decision giving rights to Mr. Margolin, and taking rights from Novelty Now. For subject matter jurisdiction, a certain specified court will be able to hear the case This means, that it must be decided which court hears the case, whether state or federal jurisdiction. Since this case contains three different states, the federal court system must be the one to hear the case. In this case, minimum contacts must be determined to decide if a certain state will have power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state (Kubasek). In this case, it must be decided if New York will take personal jurisdiction of the defendants residing in California, or Novelty Now residing in Florida.

A forum applies its own choice of law approach. So here North Montana will apply the Second Restatement of Conflicts of Laws as the state follows that approach. Under the Second Restatement, three main steps need to be considered: 1) whether the conflict is procedural or substantive, 2) whether a choice of law provision in a contract should be applied, and 3) the application of a choice of law rule. Here, it appears that the choice of law provision selecting Old York should be applied because none of the exceptions to the general rule apply.

2. The Supreme Law of the Land is comprised by the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and all treaties that have been made or will be made by the United States.

Besides, another point have a place is If the administration takes your property for open utilize, they should remunerate you for it. In England or US property could be seized by the government without compensation to build a road or a bridge. The goal here is to ensure no one has their property taken by the government without being properly compensated, by using this law public ask for compensation. As the country's population continued to grow, however, local governments began to place increasing controls on the use of land. Where landowners believed that these restrictions impeded their use of the property, or damaged its value, they began to argue that these restrictions also constituted a taking of their land requiring adequate

Freedom in America and property went hand and hand; without the ownership of property, indivduals were not granted the privilege of living freely. The security of property was recognized as a foundation of freedom in early America. This was so because without property one was viewed poorly, “those who did not control their own lives ought to not have a voice in governing the state. Political freedom required economic independence”. Therefore, freedom was not awarded to those without control of land and subsequently, control over their own lives. Furthermore, the connection between personal liberty and private property ownership paralleled that of the relationship between land control and complete freedom. Personal freedom is defined as, “the ability to make crucial individual choices free from outside coercion”. But without land, people were already viewed as incompetent for individuality, so it would be impossible for one to achieve personal freedom. This does in fact make owning land a prerequisite for personal freedom. In conclusion, there is a direct relationship between land ownership and

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

There is such a thing as limited jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. There are reasons courts

Next Justice Stevens references to the case Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, where Constitution was violated when city took one`s property to public use but actually placed it in private hands after taking. It is argued that this taking was conducted under “carefully considered development plan,” thus having a legitimate reason of taking the land and no private party would benefit from this taking (O`Brien, 319).

in which this decision is made. In some jurisdictions, the cases may be decided upon

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal