The Limitations upon the Exercise of the Right of Eminent Domain

1891 ◽  
Vol 39 (7) ◽  
pp. 452
Author(s):  
Alfred Roland Haig
Keyword(s):  
Eminent Domain ◽  
The Right

How the Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Revolution Established the Right to Housing

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Henry Ryskamp
Keyword(s):  
Eminent Domain ◽  
The Right

Recent Developments in Challenging the Right to Take in Eminent Domain

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Right

Taking Community Seriously: Lessons from the Israeli Disengagement Plan

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-171
Author(s):  
Shai Stern
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Market Value ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Similar Formula ◽  
Property Owner ◽  
Residential Communities ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

Eminent domain, or the expropriation of private property, is among the most controversial of legal arrangements. The challenges and threats that it poses to private property make it the subject of debate and dispute. Surprisingly, however, most Western jurisdictions embrace a similar formula to address expropriation, both in terms of the purposes that justify such action and the compensation that should be awarded to property owners.This article challenges the prevailing eminent domain formula, according to which, regardless of the circumstances of the expropriation, compensation to the property owner is determined by reference to the market value of the property. By exploring the case of Israel's 2005 disengagement plan, as a result of which 21 residential communities were uprooted by expropriation, this article argues that loss of communality should be taken into account in expropriations that uproot entire communities. However, in order for the legal arrangement to be efficient, fair and, of no less importance, to reflect the values embodied in the right to property, it should be constituted within a normative infrastructure that takes into account the values that the society wishes to endorse, and the inner meaning of these values.

The Nexus between Sovereignty and ‘Eminent Domain’ under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Land Act, 2013

Social Change ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-187
Author(s):  
Meenakshi Gogoi
Keyword(s):  
Eminent Domain ◽  
The State ◽  
Land Acquisition ◽  
Sovereign Power ◽  
Public Purpose ◽  
Land Acquisitions ◽  
The People ◽  
Indian State ◽  
Fair Compensation ◽  
The Right

The Indian state has used the colonial Land Acquisition Act (LAA), 1894, for acquiring land even without the consent of the people in the name of ‘public purpose’ and on payment of compensation, until it got repealed by a new act, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisitions, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The LAA, 1894 is an expression of the notion of ‘eminent domain’ and draws its sustenance from the sovereignty of the state. The understanding of sovereignty and to what extent the sovereign power of the state can use the concept of ‘eminent domain’ in the context of land acquisition remains a contentious issue. This article attempts to examine the notion of sovereignty and use of ‘eminent domain’ in the context of land acquisition in India. How does the inter-relationship between sovereignty and ‘eminent domain’ be understood according to the LAA, 1894 and the Land Act, 2013 has been discussed.

Mining and Irrigation

2020 ◽  
pp. 329-338
Author(s):  
Richard B. Collins ◽  
Dale A. Oesterle ◽  
Lawrence Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Health And Safety ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
The State ◽  
Public Ownership ◽  
Beneficial Use ◽  
Natural Stream ◽  
Private Power ◽  
The Right

This chapter addresses Article XVI of the Colorado Constitution, which deals with mining and irrigation. Mining and agriculture were Colorado’s principal industries in 1876, so provisions relating to both, and to irrigation in particular, were major subjects of discussion at the convention. Section 2 requires laws to protect the health and safety of miners and prohibits employment in mines of children under twelve. Sections 3 and 4 authorize statutes to regulate drainage of mines and to provide for teaching mining and metallurgy in “institutions of learning” supported by the state. The article’s celebrated Sections 5 and 6 assert public ownership of the unappropriated water of every natural stream and establish the right to appropriate the water of any stream for a beneficial use. Section 7 confers a private power of eminent domain for rights-of-way to convey water.

Home Rule Cities and Towns

2020 ◽  
pp. 379-396
Author(s):  
Richard B. Collins ◽  
Dale A. Oesterle ◽  
Lawrence Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
Rent Control ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
The Right ◽  
The City

This chapter explains Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, which establishes the right of home rule for cities and towns. Added in 1902, The article created the City and County of Denver, invested it with broad home rule powers and Colorado’s first initiative and veto referendum provisions, and authorized other cities to adopt home rule charters. A 1912 citizens’ initiative revised Section 6 to make home rule powers more specific and available to more municipalities. The 1970 addition of Section 16 authorized home rule for counties. Sections 10 through 13 were added in 1998 to establish the City and County of Broomfield. with powers and structure similar to Denver. The article’s terms leave much to judicial interpretation. Hotly contested issues have included oil and gas regulation, eminent domain powers, rent control, and gun control.

scholarly journals The Right and Power of Eminent Domain in the National Government

1876 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 193
Author(s):  
I. F. R.
Keyword(s):  
Eminent Domain ◽  
National Government ◽  
The Right
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document