Difference between revisions of "Berman v. Parker"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (fix) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ''Berman v. Parker'' 348 U.S. 26 (1954) is the leading [U.S. Supreme Court] decision that authorized the taking of private property for a public purpose (clearing blighted property) rather than a public use (such as constructing a government building). | + | '''Berman v. Parker''' 348 U.S. 26 (1954) is the leading [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision that authorized the taking of private property for a public purpose (clearing blighted property) rather than a public use (such as constructing a government building). |
In ''Berman'', the Court upheld a taking of a slum based on "[p]ublic safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order." ''Id.'' at 32. | In ''Berman'', the Court upheld a taking of a slum based on "[p]ublic safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order." ''Id.'' at 32. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Subsequent decisions cited the ''Berman'' precedent by allowing the taking of almost any private property by a legislative finding that the area was "blighted". | Subsequent decisions cited the ''Berman'' precedent by allowing the taking of almost any private property by a legislative finding that the area was "blighted". | ||
| − | [[Category:United States | + | == See also == |
| + | *''Kelo v. City of New London'' (2005) | ||
| + | [[Category:United States Law]] | ||
Latest revision as of 21:45, November 7, 2025
Berman v. Parker 348 U.S. 26 (1954) is the leading U.S. Supreme Court decision that authorized the taking of private property for a public purpose (clearing blighted property) rather than a public use (such as constructing a government building).
In Berman, the Court upheld a taking of a slum based on "[p]ublic safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order." Id. at 32.
Subsequent decisions cited the Berman precedent by allowing the taking of almost any private property by a legislative finding that the area was "blighted".
See also
- Kelo v. City of New London (2005)