Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Lbs Homework 2 (9/22)
Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. 43 (1815)
Who is/are the plaintiff(s) (i.e. consumer, company, employee, government) and what type of legal relief is/are the plaintiff(s) seeking?
Taylor and other members of the Episcopal church of Alexandria in the parish of Fairfax are seeking the right to sell the lands and apply the proceeds to use by the church.
What legal question must the court decide, and what is the common law rule, constitutional provision or statute that the question will turn on?
The legal question at hand is whether the church owns the land and thus has the right to sell it or if the land was properly claimed by the advocates for the poor including Terrett. To drill down further, the question is whether the church should be granted the provision of enjoinment against the people claiming the land.
What is the court's reasoning? (Might include reliance on precedent, statutory interpretation and legislative history & societal considerations)
The court held that since the land was codified and verified to be that of the church by the legislature, it is a bridge too far to say that the rights to claim the land claimed by Terrett is valid. It would make ownership and exchange of property impossible to enforce and regulate and thus there should be an...
Indeed, allowing any stranger to "claim" lands, whether it be through squatter rights or anything else, is a direct affront to the idea of private property and commerce and allowing that practice to take hold would create mass chaos and endless litigation. It would be akin to a judge going line item by line item for an unmarried couple that is splitting ways. Courts are there for married couples and not for people that live together for a brief amount of time, lovers or not.
What is the precedent or holding established by the court's ruling that will be followed in subsequent similar cases? Not just what the court does -- such as reverses the decision of the court below or awards damages to plaintiff -- but what is the proposition for which another party might cite the case?
The precedent set by this case is that land rights bestowed and upheld by the standards of the same shall not be ripped from a rightful owner even though the statutes of 1798 might say it is possible or acceptable.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
Who is/are the plaintiff(s) (i.e. consumer, company, employee, government) and what type of legal relief is/are the plaintiff(s) seeking?
Kelo was (key word) a land owner in New London that owned a house…
References
Justia. (2014, September 22). Terrett v. Taylor13 U.S. 43. Terrett v. Taylor. Retrieved September 22, 2014, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/13/43/
Justia. (2014, September 22). Kelo v. New London545 U.S. (2005). Kelo v. New London. Retrieved September 22, 2014, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/04-108/
In this case, "the government must prove that it tried to negotiate the sale and that the takeover is for public use. If the government wins, an appraiser establishes fair market value and the property owner is paid and evicted," (Bryant n.d.). In cases like KELO et al. v. CITY of NEW LONDON et al., the property owner refused to sell and the matter went to court. In most
.." Bright 83) The utilization of eminent domain has been used to evict individuals to build malls, concentrated housing projects for both the poor and the affluent, and business parks, all of which presumably have higher property tax bases and therefore better serve the community where they are built than the homes that were there previously. Having recently received a grant award, in the amount of 500,000 from the ACLU, Homeowners' Freedom, a
(4) Bell and Parchomovsky 871) This having been said the demand should rest on the public entity to not only prove the public purpose of the eminent domain ruling but also to fairly compensate the owner(s) with regard not only to market value but based on other interests as well. A takings law permits undercompensation whenever the reserve value of the property owner exceeds market price. Second, many important compensation doctrines require
Kelo v. New London and Eminent Domain When the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut in February of 2005, the issue legally speaking was a seemingly straightforward matter of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. What was at stake as a point of Constitutional law was the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, generally referred to as the "takings clause." The actual
" The public outcry against the Kelo decision confirms that citizens simply do not trust the government when it comes to their personal property. Definitions and Meanings Justice Sandra Day O'Connor strongly opposed the majority decision (Urbigkit, 2006). She wrote, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with
land use and economic development. There is a hypothetical land parcel near freeway on- and off-ramps, several acres in size, owned by the Smith family, on which developers plan to build a casino. Citizen Opposition There will be significant opposition to building a casino by a small group of vocal and highly visible opponents. Many of the opponents will be affiliated with churches, and possibly environmentalist and social activist organizations as