Kelo and Terrett: legal cases and implications

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 orderly system to property sales, purchases and exchanges. 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 that happened to be located in an area that the government of the area wanted to raze and develop into a commercial establishment under the provisions of public domain. Kelo objected and refused to sell because it was basically giving her property form one private entity to another.

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 question to be answered is whether the government is allowed to use public domain law to pick some private owners over another. Indeed, most public domain use involves using purchased lands to build roads or other public infrastructures or systems. The question is a valid one as it is hard to justify why the development company should get the property rather than allowing Kelo to keep it if so chosen.

What is the court's reasoning? (Might include reliance on precedent, statutory interpretation and legislative history & societal considerations)

The court's decisions states that while it is generally accepted that overt switching from one private owner to another, even with compensation, is generally not prudent or allowed, exceptions can be granted if there is a public use interest in question. For example, an NFL stadium that is owned by the team and its owners would be used extensively by the public and the economic activity would be a benefit to the tax coffers and businesses in the area. The opinion states clearly that while not all of the land take from Kelo and others will be used for public use only, a lot of it will be and thus this allow the seizure to go forward.