Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How closely will courts scrutinize exercises of the eminent domain power? Until recently, courts have been quite deferential when entities clothed with eminent domain power have determined that private property is necessary for public use. Two recent decisions, however, suggest that there are limits to that deference.
|The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, provides that "[p]rivate property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." At the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has transformed the "public use" requirement into a "public purpose" requirement; so long as the condemnor can conjure up a public purpose for the taking, the condemnor does not have to demonstrate that the property will be open to the public. The Court had abandoned any requirement that the condemnor show use the public as early as 1906 in Strickley v. Bay Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, and the Court reaffirmed that position in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, where it sustained a taking for economic development purposes. In Kelo, Justice Stevens also indicated that the Court would defer to the condemning authority on another issue: what land does the condemnor need to accomplish the public purpose.
The New York Court of Appeals took a similar deferential approach in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 13 N.Y.3d 511. In upholding condemnation to facilitate the Atlantic Yards development, the court concluded first that removal of urban blight is a proper predicate for exercise of the eminent domain power, and second, that when the condemnor determines that blight exists, courts will not re-examine that determination unless it would be irrational and baseless. The court took the same approach in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 15 NY3d 235, sustaining condemnation of the Manhattanville neighborhood to facilitate Columbia University's expansion. As in Goldstein, the condemnor had based its decision to condemn on the need to remove blight in the neighborhood, and conducted a study designed to demonstrate that blighted conditions existed. The Court of Appeals was unwilling to second-guess the study's blight determination.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.