Justice Stevens believes that is it the right of the government for taking land from private owners under eminent domain and using that land for public use. Steven believes that eminent domain is constitutional as long as the public welfare is increased such as increasing tax and other revenues and stimulating a troubled city. New London was an economically insufficient city compared to the averages in Connecticut. He believed that making the city more attractive was making good use of the Takings Clause in the U.S. Constitution. He also thinks that the city carefully constructed a plan in order to benefit the community rather than hinder it. Overall, Stevens believes that by helping and benefiting the city New London should follow their plans of the redevelopment. Justice O’Connor believ...
...n the opinion of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, Jackson’s Supreme Court appointee, in the Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge case. While John Marshall (enemy of Jackson) had made a passage for competition in Gibbons v. Ogden, Taney pointed out in a Jacksonian Democratic type fashion, that charters must be translated strictly. “There is no exclusive privilege given to them over the waters of Charles River….”(Document H) By this, it is obvious that there is commitment to equality of economic opportunity.
Stevens (Agreed in part with the judgment): Agreed with the ruling, but did not feel the officers should be held liable for third party occurrences while doing their jobs (Pembaur v. Cincinnati,
Holmes’s dissent in Lochner, criticizes the majority for essentially creating a new right through their substantive reading of the Fourteenth. The Court, by deeming the New York Bakeshop Act unconstitutional, does not take into account the beneficial qualities of the act. For example, protecting public health and welfare and providing proper working regulations for an industry that has a substantial need for it. The Court also overlooks the fact that the Act passed with a unanimous vote in the New York legislature. The decision is also an example of the court playing the role of the legislature by basing their decision not on law but on their own personal or political beliefs. The courts judicial activism becomes the main issue with the court’s decision in Lochner which greatly influences future decisions the court makes.
Palmer v. Mulligan (1805), resembled the case of Merritt v. Parker (1795), however with a different outcome. In Palmer v. Mulligan, Palmer was suing Mulligan to damages caused by his mill. Palmer’s mill burnt down and Mulligan built a new mill up river, so Palmer had to rebuild his mill further into the river in order to get enough water flow, this caused Parker to loose logs that were floating down river and he had to hire more labor to ensue this didn’t happen. Since Mulligan’s mill was upriver trash from his mill was floating down river and hitting Palmer’s mill causing damage. The court found in favor of Mulligan saying that Palmer’s problems were his own because Mulligan was not altering the flow of the river in any way, and that the “injuries” to his mill were being caused by the natural flow of the river and it was nearly ‘slight inconveniences’. (Palmer v. Mulligan 3 Cai. R. 307; 1805 N.Y. Lexis 343). This case showed the shift in favor to competition and the idea that competition was a good thing. It also demonstrated that not all interference with property would have been compensated. The law shifted to favor competition over prior appropriation. The law shifted from “sic utere” to “salus populi” reflecting that the welfare of the people should be the supreme of the law. (Salyer). It was seen that the people
Such power could allow cities to favor special interest groups or large corporations. It could be said, the Supreme Court’s decision concludes that there are no restraints a city must consider when taking for economic development and this creates a reasonable potential for abuse. Cities can claim that without eminent domain they cannot accomplish improvements or worthwhile projects within their communities. Many areas in which eminent domain is used are in low income neighborhoods. It is tremendously difficult for individuals in these areas to pay legal fees to fight cities from condemning their properties. Uprooting families, elderly and destroying small businesses is not a means for economic
Holdings: The convictions are affirmed because the court ruled that the Smith Act was constitutional and that the governments’ right to self-preservation at times overrules the rights granted by the Bill of Rights.
al., Appellants v. City of New York et al. Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. 1998. Web. 6 May 2014.
Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 27, Issue 2 (Fall 2011), pp. 347-360 Volokh, Eugene 27 Const. Comment. 347 (2010-2011)
2. Was the Chicago ordinance, as defined in this case, unconstitutional in its contents because it failed to provide support for the First Amendment?
THESIS: Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona are Supreme Court cases that prove to be essential in protecting and strengthening individual rights in the United States.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Lord Wilberforce, the judges who presided over the Anns v. Merton case used a two-step test in determining the scope of proximity between the homeowner and the municipality. The first part of the test determined whether the relationship between the two parties was sufficient enough so that failure to exercise a duty of care by one of the parties would result in damages sustained by the other. The second step, pursuant upon the first step looks at any aspects that would limit the obligations placed on the party to exercise a duty of care. This test and the Anns v. Merton case set a strong precedent that was used in the Kamloops v. Nielson case, the first of its kind in Canada.
Stevens J, Opinion of the Court, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) [1]
Eminent domain is the legal right to take away private property for public use by either state, or a private person or corporation. It is legally taken away for the purpose to exercise the functions of public characters. Eminent domain gives power to the federal, state and local governments, school district, hospital district, or any other agency to take away private property for the use of the public needs. Eminent domain also gives the power to the government to take away private property if needed to public needs, even without the owner’s full consent. In case of eminent domain, the owner of the property gets payments from the government through compensation. Most of the times, when the government takes away private property, it is for the needs of roads, public schools, or other useful utilities. Eminent domain in the Unites States is also mentioned in the Fifth Amendment of the constitution. The Fifth Amendment states, “ nor shall private property be taken for public use without just the compensation”. The proceeding to take the private property under the eminent domain policy is called condemnation proceeding. Eminent domain is not limited to freeway widening projects, however, it may include projects like working on a new city hall, shopping center, an office building, a bicycle path or a golf course. Nevertheless, Eminent domain not only applies to private property but also personal property. The government has the right to legally take away even a person’s personal property for the use of public needs. There are also two types of using the eminent domain. One way of using the eminent domain is taking just one part of the property from the owner and paying the owner. Second way of using emine...
Imagine you’ve been enjoying your backyard picnic table and chairs for the past 10 years when suddenly, for no apparent reason, you are served notice from a government agency that you will be fined $6,000 a day unless you remove them.