Law Commons^™

Slides: Sea Level Rise: Let The Lawsuits Begin!, John P. Casey

Climate Change and the Future of the American West: Exploring the Legal and Policy Dimensions (Summer Conference, June 7-9)

Presenter: John P. Casey, Land Use Attorney, Robinson & Cole, Hartford, CT.

1 page and 75 slides.

Using the changing nature of coastal shorelines as a basis for his presentation, Mr. Casey will discuss the challenges of protecting a landowner's interest in preserving her land, while at the same time protecting the environment and respecting the natural changes that are bound to occur over time. Mr. Casey will focus on the how the application of laws designed to protect the environment - especially in cases where changes take place over time to alter the physical characteristics of the land - …

Foster Children Paying For Foster Care, Daniel L. Hatcher

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the legality and policy concerns of state foster care agencies using children's Social Security benefits as a state funding stream. The practice requires foster children who are disabled or have deceased or disabled parents to pay for their own care. Often with the assistance of private consultants under contingency fee contracts, agencies look for children who are eligible for Social Security benefits and interject themselves as the children's representative payees. Rather than using the benefits to serve the children's unmet needs, the agencies use their fiduciary power to access the children's benefits and apply the funds to …

Kelo V. City Of New London: Supreme Court Refuses To Hamstring Local Governments, James C. Smith

Popular Media

The Court's decision last term in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005), has drawn heavy fire, most of it unmerited. By the narrowest of margins, the Court held that the city could take single-family homes to develop an office park and to provide parking or retail services for visitors to an existing state park and marina. Many observers thought the Court would take this opportunity to display its "conservative" activism by reining in the power of eminent domain. After all, the Court has grown increasingly protective of property rights during the past two decades. See …

Visions Of Guadalupe: Traces Of The Ghost Panel, Gerald Torres

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Palazzolo, The Public Trust, And The Property Owner's Reasonable Expectations: Takings And The South Carolina Marsh Island Bridge Debate, Erin Ryan

Scholarly Publications

South Carolina recently promulgated new guidelines regulating the State's consideration of requests by private marsh island owners to build bridges for vehicular access through publicly owned marsh and tidelands. Many thousands of these islands hug the South Carolina coast, but they are surrounded by tidelands subject to South Carolina’s formidable public trust doctrine, which obligates the State to manage submerged lands and waterways for the benefit of the public. This piece evaluates the relationship between the public trust doctrine and the takings subtext to the debate over the new guidelines – a relationship that has become particularly interesting in the …

Measure 37 And A Spoonful Of Kelo: A Recipe For Property Rights Activists At The Ballot Box, Patricia E. Salkin, Amy Lavine

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Uselessness Of Public Use, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. City of New London has been denounced by legal scholars from the entire political spectrum and given rise to numerous legislative proposals to reverse Kelo's deferential interpretation of the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and instead, limit the use of eminent domain when taken property is transferred to private hands. In this Essay we argue that the criticisms of Kelo are ill-conceived and misguided. They are based on a narrow analysis of eminent domain that fails to take into account the full panoply of government powers with respect to property. Given …

The "Public Use" Requirement In Eminent Domain Law: A Rationale Based On Secret Purchases And Private Influence, Daniel B. Kelly

Journal Articles

This Article provides a rationale for understanding and interpreting the public use requirement within eminent domain law. The rationale is based on two factors. First, while the government often needs the power of eminent domain to avoid the problem of strategic holdout, private parties are generally able to purchase property through secret buying agents. The availability of these undisclosed agents makes the use of eminent domain for private parties unnecessary and indeed undesirable. The government, however, is ordinarily unable to make secret purchases because its plans are subject to democratic deliberation and thus publicly known in advance. Second, while the …

Regulating Land Use In A Constitutional Shadow: The Institutional Contexts Of Exactions, Mark Fenster

UF Law Faculty Publications

The regulatory takings doctrine, the Supreme Court declared in Lingle v. Chevron, concerns the effects of a regulation on the incidents of property ownership. It serves as a constitutional protection against regulations that impose the functional equivalent to a classic taking of private property (an appropriation by the state or an ouster), and it requires compensation for owners who are subject to such regulations. Just as significant as declaring what the regulatory takings doctrine is, theCourt in Lingle also declared what it is not: it is not a judicial check onthe validity or reasonableness of a regulation that …

The Neglected Political Economy Of Eminent Domain, Nicole Stelle Garnett

Journal Articles

This Article challenges a foundational assumption about eminent domain - namely, that owners are systematically undercompensated because they receive only fair market value for their property. The Article shows that, in fact, scholars have overstated the undercompensation problem because they have focused on the compensation required by the Constitution, rather than on the actual mechanics of eminent domain. The Article examines three ways that Takers (i.e., non-judicial actors in the eminent domain process) minimize undercompensation. First, Takers may avoid taking high-subjective-value properties. Second, Takers frequently must pay more compensation in the form of relocation assistance. Third, Takers and property owners …