Eminent Domain -Public Use Doctrine

Question 1

Public Use Doctrine

Answer 1

• Land can only be taken for public use with just compensation

Question 2

• Kelo v. City of New London – S. Ct. (2005)

Answer 2

o F: Town takes private property to then give to private entity for redevelopment
o H: Economic redevelopment is held to be a sufficient government purpose for the taking
 Even though some of the private property taken was not actually blighted
 Public use traditionally implies highways, schools, public hospitals, etc  things actually used by the public
 Ct. adopts a broad public purpose test 

Question 3

broad public purpose test

Answer 3

consider entire plan – not just piecemeal view–>deference to legislative judgments (also citing Berman)

Question 4

• Pumpelly v. Green Bay Company – S. Ct. (1872) “Consequential Damages”

Answer 4

o 5th amendment applies when property is directly damaged by certain government actions
o F: Dam built as part of state directed scheme to improve navigation of rivers caused flooding of P’s land
 D argued state had right to cause these damages without compensation, arguing this was not a taking
o H: For P court found that nearly complete destruction of the land rose to a taking under WI constitution (physical invasion–>claim for relief)
o Recovery is allowed when damages are direct, peculiar, and substantial burden on plaintiff’s property. Richards v. Washington Terminal Co. Not where generalized community damages

Question 5

• Robinson v. Ariyoshi – 9th Cir. (1985) “Judicial Fiat”

Answer 5

o F: private systems of water transfer and irrigation in Hawaii; litigation changes law (McBryde I – HI adopts English common law definition of riparian rights); severe consequence because people have spent a lot of $ to utilize their (previously existing) water rights
o H: Ct. says that new law per HI Supreme Court is valid, but it cannot divest people of their existing property rights (e.g. here many people’s rights in water had clearly vested)
 “State must bring condemnation proceedings before it can interfere with vested water rights and enjoyment of the improvements made in reliance thereon”