Legal Brief Assignment
Sociology 2309
Law and Society, Spring 2016
Cody Paterson
Kelo et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
Certiorari to the supreme court of Connecticut
Procedural History:
The Kelo case was appealed by petitioners to the New London Superior Court where the court granted a restraining order prohibiting the taking of some of the properties, but denying relief as to others, and was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The Issue:
Does the taking of the petitioner’s properties violate the “public use” restriction in the fifth amendment’s taking clause or is the “public use” clause valid for purposes of betterment for the community as a whole.
Holding:
The court ruled that the petitioner’s …show more content…
The city approved a development plan designed to revitalize the ailing economy through its development agent, which purchased most of the property for the project. The city could not take the land to confer a private benefit for a single party, but the court had embraced a more broad and natural interpretation for public use as “public purpose” (Kelo). The city had determined that the area at issue was going to justify economic rejuvenation and was entitled to deference, which then the city had made the plans to what they thought would benefit the community as a whole. In entirety, the government cannot take private property unless the forfeiting of the property is for the public’s use and does not benefit another private …show more content…
While coming up with their rationale they looked the case of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff. In that case land was taken from lessors and given to lessees for just compensation to reduce the concentration of land ownership. They ruled that the state’s purpose of eliminating the “social and economic evils of a land oligopoly” was a valid reason for public use (Kelo). The court’s ruling for this case said that it would be “incongruous” to hold that the city’s interest in economic benefits to be derived from developing the Fort Trumbull area. The government’s pursuit for a public purpose will more than often benefit private parties. As soon as the public purpose has been made aware, the amount and character of the land to be taken and used for an integrated plan rests on the legislative branch. This case extended to determining if the land being taken from the petitioners laid within the boundaries of the fifth amendment’s “public use”
Sociology 2309
Law and Society, Spring 2016
Cody Paterson
Kelo et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
Certiorari to the supreme court of Connecticut
Procedural History:
The Kelo case was appealed by petitioners to the New London Superior Court where the court granted a restraining order prohibiting the taking of some of the properties, but denying relief as to others, and was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The Issue:
Does the taking of the petitioner’s properties violate the “public use” restriction in the fifth amendment’s taking clause or is the “public use” clause valid for purposes of betterment for the community as a whole.
Holding:
The court ruled that the petitioner’s …show more content…
The city approved a development plan designed to revitalize the ailing economy through its development agent, which purchased most of the property for the project. The city could not take the land to confer a private benefit for a single party, but the court had embraced a more broad and natural interpretation for public use as “public purpose” (Kelo). The city had determined that the area at issue was going to justify economic rejuvenation and was entitled to deference, which then the city had made the plans to what they thought would benefit the community as a whole. In entirety, the government cannot take private property unless the forfeiting of the property is for the public’s use and does not benefit another private …show more content…
While coming up with their rationale they looked the case of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff. In that case land was taken from lessors and given to lessees for just compensation to reduce the concentration of land ownership. They ruled that the state’s purpose of eliminating the “social and economic evils of a land oligopoly” was a valid reason for public use (Kelo). The court’s ruling for this case said that it would be “incongruous” to hold that the city’s interest in economic benefits to be derived from developing the Fort Trumbull area. The government’s pursuit for a public purpose will more than often benefit private parties. As soon as the public purpose has been made aware, the amount and character of the land to be taken and used for an integrated plan rests on the legislative branch. This case extended to determining if the land being taken from the petitioners laid within the boundaries of the fifth amendment’s “public use”