Eminent domain - Revision history

Quidam65 at 16:56, February 3, 2026

2026-02-03T16:56:33Z

RobSmith: Reverted edits by Cwihfehihief (talk) to last revision by DavidB4-bot

2022-10-27T22:31:51Z

Reverted edits by Cwihfehihief (talk) to last revision by DavidB4-bot

Can't load revision 1896211

Cwihfehihief at 22:23, October 27, 2022

2022-10-27T22:23:53Z

Can't load revision 1896181

DavidB4-bot: Spelling, grammar, and general cleanup

2019-12-04T07:09:12Z

Spelling, grammar, and general cleanup

Quidam65 at 02:11, February 25, 2019

2019-02-25T02:11:53Z

Quidam65 at 02:09, February 25, 2019

2019-02-25T02:09:51Z

Quidam65 at 18:47, February 2, 2019

2019-02-02T18:47:56Z

DavidB4-bot: /* See also */clean up & uniformity

2016-06-27T06:29:02Z

Progressingamerica: Carter v. Bull

2015-07-18T17:34:14Z

Carter v. Bull

TheAmericanRedoubt at 21:26, January 6, 2015

2015-01-06T21:26:10Z

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Under the [[Fifth Amendment]] of the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]], the government must pay "just compensation" to the owner of the private property that is taken.  However, "just compensation" usually does not include intangible values of the property, such as its business good will with customers or its personal sentimental value.  Often "just compensation" is set by a condemnation hearing that does not even give [[fair market value]].
-In the decision of ''[[Kelo v. New London]]'' (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to include "public purpose" such as increased tax revenues as a substitute for "public use" in eminent domain.  This enables towns to take private property from homeowners and small businesses to give the property to large corporations.<ref>In one bizarre example, a home improvement store owned by 84 Lumber -- a northeastern centered chain -- was taken by the local government, so the property could be "redeveloped" -- as a home improvement store owned by national chain Home Depot.</ref>  This sparked a public outrage and several state courts (e.g., Michigan and Ohio) have required public use, as have several state legislatures.
+In the decision of ''[[Kelo v. New London]]'' (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to include "public purpose" such as increased tax revenues as a substitute for "public use" in eminent domain.  This enables towns to take private property from homeowners and small businesses to give the property to large corporations.<ref>In one bizarre example, a home improvement store owned by 84 Lumber -- a northeastern centered chain -- was taken by the local government, so the property could be "redeveloped" -- as a home improvement store owned by national chain Home Depot.</ref>  This sparked a public outrage and several state courts (e.g., Michigan and Ohio) have required an actual public use, as have several state legislatures.
 In 2006, on the one-year anniversary of the ''Kelo'' decision, President [[George W. Bush]] issued an [[executive order]] that would limit eminent domain takings to those that would directly benefit the public, and not merely for the benefit of private parties.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ==See also==
 *[[Carter v. Bull]]
 [[Category:United States Law]]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Under the [[Fifth Amendment]] of the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]], the government must pay "just compensation" to the owner of the private property that is taken.  However, "just compensation" usually does not include intangible values of the property, such as its business good will with customers or its personal sentimental value.  Often "just compensation" is set by a condemnation hearing that does not even give [[fair market value]].
-In the decision of ''[[Kelo v. New London]]'' (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to include "public purpose" such as increased tax revenues as a substitute for "public use" in eminent domain.  This enables towns to take private property from homeowners and small businesses to give the property to large corporations, such as large retail "box" stores like Home Depot.  This sparked a public outrage and several state courts (e.g., Michigan and Ohio) have required public use, as have several state legislatures.
+In the decision of ''[[Kelo v. New London]]'' (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to include "public purpose" such as increased tax revenues as a substitute for "public use" in eminent domain.  This enables towns to take private property from homeowners and small businesses to give the property to large corporations.<ref>In one bizarre example, a home improvement store owned by 84 Lumber -- a northeastern centered chain -- was taken by the local government, so the property could be "redeveloped" -- as a home improvement store owned by national chain Home Depot.</ref>  This sparked a public outrage and several state courts (e.g., Michigan and Ohio) have required public use, as have several state legislatures.
 In 2006, on the one-year anniversary of the ''Kelo'' decision, President [[George W. Bush]] issued an [[executive order]] that would limit eminent domain takings to those that would directly benefit the public, and not merely for the benefit of private parties.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Under the [[Fifth Amendment]] of the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]], the government must pay "just compensation" to the owner of the private property that is taken.  However, "just compensation" usually does not include intangible values of the property, such as its business good will with customers or its personal sentimental value.  Often "just compensation" is set by a condemnation hearing that does not even give [[fair market value]].
-In the decision of ''[[Kelo v. New London]]'' (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to include "public purpose" such as increased tax revenues as a substitute for "public use" in eminent domain.  This enables towns to take private property from homeowners and small businesses to give the property to large corporations, such as large retail "box" stores like Home Depot.  This sparked a public outrage and several state courts (e.g., Michigan and Ohio) have required public use, as have several state legislators.
+In the decision of ''[[Kelo v. New London]]'' (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to include "public purpose" such as increased tax revenues as a substitute for "public use" in eminent domain.  This enables towns to take private property from homeowners and small businesses to give the property to large corporations, such as large retail "box" stores like Home Depot.  This sparked a public outrage and several state courts (e.g., Michigan and Ohio) have required public use, as have several state legislatures.
 In 2006, on the one-year anniversary of the ''Kelo'' decision, President [[George W. Bush]] issued an [[executive order]] that would limit eminent domain takings to those that would directly benefit the public, and not merely for the benefit of private parties.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, February 2, 2019
Line 16:		Line 16:
	[[Category:United States Law]]		[[Category:United States Law]]
	[[Category:Fifth Amendment]]		[[Category:Fifth Amendment]]
		+	[[Category:Legal Terms]]
		+	[[Category:Real Estate]]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 *[[Carter v. Bull]]
-[[Category : United States Law]]
+[[Category:United States Law]]
-[[Category : Fifth Amendment]]
+[[Category:Fifth Amendment]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:26, January 6, 2015
Line 14:		Line 14:
	*[[Kelo v. City of New London]]		*[[Kelo v. City of New London]]

−	[[Category:United States Law]]	+	[[Category : United States Law]]
		+	[[Category : Fifth Amendment]]