Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Restricting Kelo: Will Redefining Blight In Senate Bill 7 Be The Light At The End Of The Tunnel., Adrianne Archer
Restricting Kelo: Will Redefining Blight In Senate Bill 7 Be The Light At The End Of The Tunnel., Adrianne Archer
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Kelo v. City of New London, the United States Supreme Court extended the public use limitation to its most expansive definition yet. The Kelo decision enhanced the Fifth Amendment takings power by allowing the city of New London, Connecticut, to exercise eminent domain power in furtherance of an economic development plan. Notably, the city’s revitalization plan did not include a claim that the area subject to eminent domain was “blighted.” The Fifth Amendment provides that governments may wield the power of eminent domain and take private property for public use but only with just compensation. Generally, private property can …
The Unable To Agree Requirement And Texas Condemnation Law: A Critical Analysis Of Hubenak V. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.., B. Tyler Milton
The Unable To Agree Requirement And Texas Condemnation Law: A Critical Analysis Of Hubenak V. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.., B. Tyler Milton
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Texas, the state constitution requires adequate compensation as a predicate to a taking of private property for a public use. Though an eminent domain cause of action has both a constitutional and statutory basis, the requirement of adequate or just compensation is premised on principles of natural equity and justice. Texas statutorily mandates that a condemner of land must, prior to the institution of a condemnation proceeding, plead and prove the two parties were “unable to agree” on the corresponding compensation due to the landowner. Texas courts interpreted this requirement in the condemnation statute to compel “good faith negotiations” …
Mind The Gap: Expansion Of Texas Governmental Immunity Between Takings And Tort., Jadd F. Masso
Mind The Gap: Expansion Of Texas Governmental Immunity Between Takings And Tort., Jadd F. Masso
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Jennings v. City of Dallas, the city’s wastewater collection division was dispatched to unstop a clogged sewer main but instead caused sewage to spew into the Jennings’ home with dramatic force, causing extensive damage. The Jennings subsequently filed suit against the city, alleging its actions constituted an unconstitutional taking, damaging, or destruction of their property for public use without adequate compensation in violation of Article I, § 17 of the Texas Constitution. The issue presented from the case was whether an individual citizen should be liable for such losses when the damage—as an incident to governmental action—in effect benefits …
Kelo V. City Of New London, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District V. United States, And Washoe County V. United States: A Fifth Amendment Takings Primer., Christopher L. Harris, Daniel J. Lowenberg
Kelo V. City Of New London, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District V. United States, And Washoe County V. United States: A Fifth Amendment Takings Primer., Christopher L. Harris, Daniel J. Lowenberg
St. Mary's Law Journal
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a remedy available to citizens for the government's undue interference with private property rights. It operates similarly to an affirmative defense as it entitles citizens to “just compensation” when the government “takes” private property for “public use.” The Takings Clause thus embodies the idea that society values the protection of private property. The Supreme Court of the United States stated the purpose of the Takings Clause is “to bar Government from forcing citizens from bearing public burdens which, in all fairness, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Kelo v. …