Kelo v city of new london

Kelo v city of new london, 545 us 469 (2005), was a case decided by the supreme court of the united states involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.

kelo v city of new london In 2000, the city of new london approved a development plan that, in the words of the supreme court of connecticut, was “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.

Kelo was the lead plaintiff in kelo v city of new london, connecticut, where the us supreme court ruled that private property can be taken through eminent domain for economic development. Most of my new book the grasping hand, focuses on the broader legal and political issues raised by the supreme court’s ruling in kelo v city of new london as explained in the first post in this series , i wrote the book primarily to address these big-picture issues.

2 kelo v new london opinion of the court i the city of new london (hereinafter city) sits at the junction of the thames river and the long island sound. Kelo (plaintiff) had owned a home in new london for over sixty years kelo's property was in one of the areas scheduled to be condemned by the city’s development project. No 04—108 susette kelo, et al, petitioners v city of new london, connecticut, et al on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut.

New london, a city in connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers the city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues susette kelo and others whose property was seized sued new london in state court.

Kelo v city of new london

kelo v city of new london In 2000, the city of new london approved a development plan that, in the words of the supreme court of connecticut, was “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.

The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. Susette kelo at her condemned home in new london, ct (spencer platt/getty) there has been some progress, but much is left to do t en years ago, on june 23, 2005, the united states supreme court dropped a judicial thunderbolt in kelo v.

After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Susette kelo, et al, petitioners v city of new london, connecticut, et al on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut [june 23, 2005] justice stevens delivered the opinion of the court. Susette kelo, et al, petitioners v city of new london, connecticut, et al on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut [june 23, 2005] 4 kelo v new london opinion of the court on the arrival of the pfizer facility and the new commerce it was expected to attract in addition to creating jobs.

kelo v city of new london In 2000, the city of new london approved a development plan that, in the words of the supreme court of connecticut, was “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.
Kelo v city of new london
Rated 3/5 based on 26 review
Download