Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Regulating Land Use In A Constitutional Shadow: The Institutional Contexts Of Exactions, Mark Fenster
Regulating Land Use In A Constitutional Shadow: The Institutional Contexts Of Exactions, Mark Fenster
ExpressO
In a refreshingly clear and comprehensive decision issued towards the end of its 2004 Term, the Supreme Court explained in Lingle v. Chevron (2005) that the Takings Clause requires compensation only for the effects of a regulation on an individual’s property rights. Under the substantive due process doctrine, by contrast, courts engage in a deferential inquiry into both a regulation’s validity and the means by which the regulation attempts to meet the government’s objective. Lingle’s explanation appeared to cast doubt on the doctrinal foundation and reach of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), …
The "Public Use" Of Private Sports Stadiums: Kelo Hits A Homerun For Private Developers, Cristin F. Hartzog
The "Public Use" Of Private Sports Stadiums: Kelo Hits A Homerun For Private Developers, Cristin F. Hartzog
Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law
Part I of this note briefly discusses the principle of eminent domain and the evolution of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Takings Clause. Part II analyzes the application of the Court's interpretations of the "public use" requirement of the Takings Clause on the issue of whether it is proper for a state to exercise its power of eminent domain pursuant to a stadium development project. Finally, Part III offers a solution to the conflict between property owners' interests in keeping their land and cities' interests in creating economic growth.
Six Myths About Kelo: Kelo V. City Of New London, Thomas W. Merrill
Six Myths About Kelo: Kelo V. City Of New London, Thomas W. Merrill
Faculty Scholarship
Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005), is unique in the modem annals of law in terms of the negative response it has evoked. The initial reaction by lawyers familiar with the case was one of lack of surprise. Within days, however, Internet bloggers, television commentators, and neighbors talking over backyard fences decided that Keio was an outrage. Even Justice Stevens sought to distance himself from his own majority opinion, declaring in a speech to a bar association that he thought the outcome was "unwise," and that he would not have supported it if he were …