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.
.
A c) Kelo v. New London: State power of eminent domain properly used even though taking of property inured to benefit of one private entity over another, because its effect was beneficial to the community..
A d) Adarand v. Pina: Overturned Metro v FCC and decided that any type of racial classification used by any government agency triggers strict scrutiny.
A e) Cole v. Burns International Security Systems: Employers may require employees to waive their right to litigate employment issues in courts of law as a condition of employment in connection with mandatory arbitration agreements provided certain fairness, notice, and cost issues are complied with.
9. One distinctive characteristic of courts in the U.S. is their use of precedent. Identify the precedent used in these cases and succinctly state how their application determined the outcome. (4) a) Campbell v. State Farm Insurance Company: established a cap of single-digit multiples (i.e. less than 10x) the actual damages except in cases where egregious conduct results in limited economic...
The Court applied Gore which held that the wealth of the defendant cannot be used to determine punitive damages; the Court also applied Haslip in which it had previously determined that quadruple damages approach unconstitutionality in punitive damage awards.
A b) Cole v. Burns International Security Company: D.C. District Court applies SCOTUS ruling in Gilmer, to uphold pre-employment arbitration agreements that meet the 5 elements of fairness articulated in Gilmer.
10. Respond to a colleague who asserts that we need to get rid of these liberal activist judges and replace them with conservative judges who interpret the law and do not make the law. (5)
The 2000 SCOTUS decision terminating the by-hand vote count then underway in Florida is a perfect example that "conservative" justices with no prior history of "liberal" statutory interpretation, in fact, make law, as evidenced in the way five "conservative" Republican justices effectively awarded the presidency to George W. Bush by their whim under the color of "judicial interpretation."
A b) Cole v. Burns International Security Company: D.C. District Court applies SCOTUS ruling in Gilmer, to uphold pre-employment arbitration agreements that meet the 5 elements of fairness articulated in Gilmer.
10. Respond to a colleague who asserts that we need to get rid of these liberal activist judges and replace them with conservative judges who interpret the law and do not make the law. (5)
The 2000 SCOTUS decision terminating the by-hand vote count then underway in Florida is a perfect example that "conservative" justices with no prior history of "liberal" statutory interpretation, in fact, make law, as evidenced in the way five "conservative" Republican justices effectively awarded the presidency to George W. Bush by their whim under the color of "judicial interpretation."
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