Eminent Domain. Taking Private Property without Compensation or Due Process. Dilworth v. State, 36 S. W. Rep., 274 (Tex.)

1896 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 111
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Eminent Domain

scholarly journals The New Control of Territory and Urban Planning: the Eminent Domain in the US

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Sonia Paone
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Public Utility ◽  
Transfer Property ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The City

The article analyses the transformations of the use of eminent domain in the United States in the context of urban redevelopment programs. In the past the private property has been expropriated for public use only. Recently it is possible to forcibly transfer property, from a private subject to private developers, on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis that demonstrates that the new use is more efficient than the previous one. This profound change has been possible thanks to a progressive modification of the concept of public use. Traditionally, public use coincided with the construction of infrastructures and public utility, such as highways and railroads. Over the time, it has come to include other aims: firstly, projects of urban renewal and economic development carried forth by private developers. Essentially, it has resulted in the use of expropriation to assemble lands which are then granted to subjects who intervene in the reconfiguration of the city for private purposes. Starting from some important examples of urban development, the main phases of this process are reconstructed, also taking into account the most important decisions of the US Supreme Court that contributed to the change of doctrine, invalidating the postulate of public use as justification for expropriation.

The Supreme Court's ‘Return’ to Economic Regulation

1986 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 91-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Turn Of The Century ◽  
Economic Regulation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Substantive Reason

There is a standard historical lore of the Supreme Court's role in the economy and it runs as follows. The due process clause, like the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, was enacted after the Civil War to help blacks. The Supreme Court proceeded to empty the amendment of its protections for minorities and then, from the turn of the century on, used the due process clause to protect business from government regulation. It did so (1) by interpreting the word person in the amendment to include the corporation and (2) by finding that the clause not only for-bade the government from interfering with private property unless it followed fair procedures, but also forbade the government to do so unless it had a good, substantive reason. Substantive due process meant that no statute regulating property was constitutional unless it was reasonable, and the Court was the final arbiter of reasonableness. The Court's approach to reasonableness was that free market laissez-faire was the rule, and government regulation the exception.

Constitutional Law in 1917–1918. II: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1917

1919 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-250
Author(s):  
Thomas Reed Powell
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Turn On ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
Pennsylvania Hospital ◽  
Constitutional Decisions ◽  
Proper Interpretation

There is little or no homogeneity to the questions to be considered under the head of retroactive legislation. A dispute whether a state has passed a law impairing the obligation of contracts may turn on a question as to the proper interpretation or application of language, or on opposing views of what is sufficient consideration or what agreements are against public policy. It was under the obligation-of-contracts clause that the Pennsylvania Hospital case decided that the power of governmental authorities to exercise eminent domain could not be bargained away. The crucial question is more often whether alleged rights existed than whether undoubted rights have been impaired. The Fourteenth Amendment and the doctrine of vested rights combine to make the obligation-of-contracts clause almost superfluous, as it is difficult to think of any impairment of the obligation of contracts which that clause inhibits which could not equally well be held deprivations of liberty or property without due process of law.This is apparent from the fact that retroactive legislation by Congress is questioned under the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment, a contract being regarded as a property right that can be interfered with only when there is sufficient justification for what is done.

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

Book Review: Private Property and Public Power: Eminent Domain in Philadelphia

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-191
Author(s):  
Marcus Anthony Hunter
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Public Power

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.

Private Property, Community Development, and Eminent Domain

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Paul Malloy
Keyword(s):  
Community Development ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Eminent Domain
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document