Eminent Domain (Ch. 12)

Question 1

5th Amendment Takings Clause

Answer 1

“Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Question 2

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)

Answer 2

Supreme Court allowed E.D. to break up a land oligopoly by invoking legislative deference. The resulting rule is that E.D. is constitutional if the legislature rationally could have believed that the act would promote its objective.

Question 3

What is “just compensation”?

Answer 3

Usually equated with fair market value, but it doesn’t include moving expenses, lost customer base for a business, or emotional attachment.

Question 4

In the early-1800s how was E.D. used?

Answer 4

Mainly only for land that was actually to be used by the public, such as for public roads, schools, post offices, etc.

Question 5

Berman v. Parker (1954)

Answer 5

Supreme Court upheld E.D. to re-develop slum areas in D.C. by invoking the police power.

Question 6

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Answer 6

Supreme Court further expanded E.D. to economic development in an economically distressed city, and allowed E.D. over a non-blighted, non-harmful property.

Question 7

dissent to Kelo

Answer 7

written by O’Connor, said that the holding essentially eliminated the words “for public use” from the 5th Amendment.