Eminent Domain. Compensation. Just Compensation for Requisitioned Goods Is Ceiling Price, Even Though Most Holders Sold to Government at Lower Program Price

1952 ◽  
Vol 65 (6) ◽  
pp. 1061
Keyword(s):  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Ceiling Price ◽  
Just Compensation

The Economics of Eminent Domain: Private Property, Public Use, and Just Compensation

2006 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 275-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Miceli ◽  
Kathleen Segerson
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Just Compensation

Legal Doctrine and Judicial Review of Eminent Domain in China

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Wenzheng Mao ◽  
Shitong Qiao
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Systematic Investigation ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Authoritarian State ◽  
Just Compensation

Which of the three legal doctrines of public use, just compensation, and due process is the most effective in constraining abuses of eminent domain power? This article addresses this question for the first time and presents the first-ever systematic investigation of the judicial review of eminent domain in China. Our empirical study reveals that Chinese courts focus on eminent domain procedures while rarely supporting claims based on public interest or just compensation. Procedural rules are determinate and therefore easier to enforce than substantial standards of public interest and just compensation. Chinese courts also choose to focus on eminent domain procedures to confine their own judicial review power for the purpose of self-preservation in an authoritarian state that empowers the courts to monitor and control local governments but does not want them to become too powerful. The study calls for a “due process revolution” in eminent domain law and introduces the “judicial politics of legal doctrine” approach to the study of Chinese law, an approach that takes both political institutions and legal doctrines seriously.

Remodeling Just Compensation: Applying Restorative Justice to Takings Law Doctrine

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 413-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shai Stern
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Change ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Just Compensation ◽  
Scholarly Discourse

Compensation for expropriation in most western jurisdictions aims to provide justice. Yet, while this quest for justice is inherent in expropriation laws, they nevertheless say little, if any, about the underlying conception of justice or how justice should be pursued. A closer examination of courts’ judgments, as well as scholarly discourse on the quest for justice in expropriations reveals a muddled dialogue in which divergent justifications pull one towards different normative and positive conclusions. Currently, expropriation doctrine purports to incorporate a sense of fair dealings with those who become victim to legal devices such as eminent domain. However, based on current case law, the reality of expropriation laws fails to reflect any true practice of justice.This Article suggests a conceptual change in expropriation laws’ remedial scheme by embracing restorative justice as the underlying concept of what constitutes justice in expropriation law. By establishing expropriation law on a restorative conception of justice, a coherent framework will emerge that is circumstances attentive and will provide practical instruments to overcome some of current law’s most significant challenges. This opens a new venue for both expropriation law and restorative justice. Equally important, the Article provides a novel opportunity to consider restorative justice beyond the borders of criminal law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document