Martin, who has acquired some valuable property over the years, now finds himself not knowing what to do about these issues that he is facing. With the multiple issues surrounding the mountain property that he owns, the possibility of losing his beach house getaway, and the loss of his car, Martin now turns to the help of his attorney to see what can be done to make things right. Understanding the relevant laws related to each of these issues as well as looking to the wisdom found in scripture will help lead to some resolutions and justice for Martin. The first issues presented in this case study is that of the mountain property that Martin owned with some of his friends as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. A joint tenancy with right of survivorship (JTWROS) can be a common way of owning property between related and unrelated individuals ensuring that upon one’s death, their share of the property is equally divided up among the remaining joint tenants (Segal, 1998). The first conundrum involving this property and the laws pertaining to JTWROS is the issue of Martin’s friend and cotenant Peter, who stated in In the case of Kelo v. New London (2005), the city of New London was granted the right to use eminent domain in taking the private property of residents to be used for economic development purposes. Because of this decision, many states passed laws to protect private property owners from the misuse of eminent domain (Kubasek et al., 2015). In North Carolina in particular, the House Bill 1965 prevents condemnations for economic development (“50 State Report Card,” 2007). Due to the new bill passed in North Carolina after the Kelo decision, Martin may be able to make a proper case in regard to his beach house as it seems that their only reason for condemnation is for the purpose of economic
The Land Reform Act of 1967 permitted the state of Hawaii to redistribute land by condemning and acquiring private property from landlords (the lessors) in order to sell it to another private owner, in this case, their tenants (the lessees). The Hawaii State Legislature passed the Land Reform Act after discovering that nearly forty-seven percent (47%) of the state was owned by only seventy-two (72) private land owners. That meant that only forty-nine percent of Hawaii was owned by the State and Federal Govermnet.The contested statute gave lessees of single family homes the right to invoke the government's power of eminent domain to purchase the property that they leased, even if the landowner objected. The challengers of the statue (the land owners) claimed that such a condemnation was not a taking for public use because the property, once condemned by the state, was promptly turned over to the lessee (a private ...
In the case of McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418 (2005), there was an internal investigation of the police department of “improper use of police scanners to eavesdrop on cordless phones and cellphones” (Diagle, 2012 para.10), which involved many officers. Police officer McKinley was interviewed two times. The first time McKinley was interviewed it was about the investigation, and the second time was about allegations that he was untruthful during the first interview, both times he was questioned he was under the Garrity Warnings. By the time of the second interview, McKinley was already “under criminal investigation for lying” (Diagle, 2012, para. 10), and during the second interview it was made clear to McKinley that it was about
The decision of the House of Lords in City of London Building Society v Flegg marks a key stage in how the balance is drawn between occupiers and creditors in priority disputes; the seeds of which were originally planted in the Law of Property Act 1925. It posed a serious challenge to the conventional understanding of overreaching and the machinery of conveyancing.Ref ?
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton case was taken in by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 1988. The case was brought up by Beth Ann Faragher, whom between 1985 and 1990, worked as a lifeguard for the City of Boca Raton, Florida. During these years, Faragher stated the two male supervisors, Bill Terry and David Silverman, performed several acts of sexual harassment against her, and several other female lifeguards. These acts ranged from sexual comments about these women’s bodies to asking them to engage in sexual intercourse with them. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the City of Boca Raton under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that an employer may only be held responsible, if supervisory employees
In the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v Lopez (1995), a twelfth grade boy, Alfonzo Lopez, brought a loaded .38 caliber firearm to his local Texas high school. After being reported to the front office, Lopez was questioned about the gun and openly admitted that the firearm was in his possession. Texas then convicted Alfonzo of a criminal statute, which prohibited the carrying of a gun on school grounds. However, the charges were dropped rather quickly when the United States Government charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
...families. Nor could they protect their wives from physical or sexual abuse by owners and overseers (a frequent occurrence on many planation’s) or determine when and under what conditions their children worked.
Eminent Domain is defined as “the power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property” (Farlex, par. 1). Eminent domain has a long and distinguished legal history, dating back to the Magna Carta. The term “eminent domain” was coined by Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), a Dutch jurist and philosophe, to describe the power of the state over natural property (Dalton, par. 3). This legal process has been used in many nations ostensibly for the “greater good.” Recently, Russia has come onto the world stage as abusing the power of eminent domain in preparation for the 2014 Olympic Games, as has Brazil in regards to the World Cup and upcoming 2016 Olympic Games. They, like many nations, have been accused of not giving just compensation for property taken. World-wide, eminent domain and it abuse of have been increasing as the world’s population and economy change. Author Tit Elingtin writes “The governments have taken advantage of that eminent domain ruling, and you, the media, have failed at protecting citizens” (Elingtin par. 13). This quotation reflects many people’s opinions today. Many believe that governments abuse the power they are given with eminent domain and call on the United Nations to remove the problem.
Changes for land holding came about after the Revolution and made a big impact within families. Primogeniture is a term that means the inheritance of real property. This law required for all land to be pa...
Having something taken away that is dear to one's heart and given to city, county, state, or nation for use of their own good to earn more money, is that what people want to keep happening around the United States? Eminent domain is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use. Eminent domain is stated in the constitution, is very controversial, and is affecting many individuals's lives.
There is no law that defines or even bestows eminent domain whether it is regarded as an inherited power. Justice William Strong came to the conclusion that “the very nature of sovereignty allowed the taking of land for public use, and also invoked the Takings Clause as supporting the government's right to exercise eminent domain powers” (Newton 1). As the years pass, the powers of the eminent domain seem to get interpreted more broadly. In 2005, the case of Kelo vs. New London, the Supreme Court came to the ruling that for the purpose of economic revitalization, the seizing of property was constitutional.
The defendant Rachel Holland was at the time a nine-year old girl with an intellectual disability with an I.Q. of 44 and an academic functioning level of a four-year old child. Rachel was described as being well behaved and popular with her second grade classmates. She enjoyed school and was motivated to learn. The plaintiff Sacramento Unified School District proposed to educate Rachel half time in a special education class, and half-time placement in a regular classroom. Rachel’s core classes such as Reading and Math services would be rendered in a special education class and classes such as PE, Music, Lunch, and Recess would be rendered in a general education classroom. Rachel’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) stressed language and communication goals such as speaking in four or five word sentences, initiating and terminating conversations, verbally stating name, developing twenty-four word sight vocabulary, counting to twenty-five, and printing first and last
Take John Skiffington for example. He is a “free,” white, landowner; he is the sheriff of the town and has great power. John lives for the Lord and is wrapped in the Bible. Superficially, everyone sees Skiffington as a very free man, with no binding restraints. So what is John Skiffington’s burden? Looking deeper into Skiffington’s character one will find that he has a mental battle raging at all times. He wants to do everything in his power to obey and protect the law. After all, that is his job, for John, the law is a belief so strong that he has devoted his entire life to protecting it. That is exactly what John’s problem is, he is torn between two very important, very strong beliefs that he has put his strength into for years. Skiffington’s battle is, what about when the law protects something that he knows is wrong in God’s eyes? The two most important things in John Skiffington’s life, serving the Lord and protecting the law, begin to collide! Is this really freedom? Skiffington is physically free, but mentally he is quiet the opposite. When Mildred Townsend says “ I have a feelin in don’t matter anymore, sheriff, your deputy didn’t seem to care.“ John begins to realize that he will not be able protect the innocent and protect the law. Edward P. Jones introduces this by writing “he blinked because he knew that...
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
Eminent domain has long been a controversial power that both the federal and state governments possess. This power gives the right to the government bodies to expropriate private property or land, that it sees as being blighted, and put it to better use for the greater good of the public. For eminent domain to be exercised the seizing of the properties must meet the requirement that they will be for public purpose or public necessity. As long as this requirement is met the federal government cannot be stopped from acquiring private property. Because of this, the eminent domain power has come under tremendous scrutiny for being unfair and unconstitutional. Moreover, people that have fell victim to this law are protesting that they were not adequately compensated for the property that was taken. The law of eminent domain continues to be a point of debate as it has been continuously proven that this law has negative consequences on not only the residents directly affected by the ramifications of the law, but also the communities that are made up of these residences.
This memorandum serves to analyze the arguments put forth by Kelo v. City of New London, concerning the constitutionality of the takings of property by the City of New London for economic development. Specifically it will look at the arguments made in the case about whether the attainment of private property by the City of New London for the purpose of economic development that would support private development meet the public use requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states. This memorandum will first give the facts that lead to the case, followed by an analysis of the majority opinion and concurring opinion, then the dissents will be analyzed, and finally two lessons learned for the case will be identified.