Kelo
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
SUSETTE KELO, et al., Petitioners v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, et al.
No. 04-108
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
545 U.S. 469; 125 S. Ct. 2655; 162 L. Ed. 2d 439; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5011; 60 ERC (BNA) 1769; 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 733; 35 ELR 20134; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 437
February 22, 2005, Argued June 23, 2005, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:
US Supreme Court rehearing denied by Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 1158, 126 S. Ct. 24, 162 L. Ed. 2d 922, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5331 (U.S., Aug. 22, 2005)
PRIOR HISTORY: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT. Kelo v. City of New London, 268 Conn. 1, 843 A.2d 500, 2004 Conn. LEXIS 54 (2004)
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
DECISION: [***439] Proposed disposition of property "to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize . . . economically distressed city" held to qualify as "public use" within meaning of takings clause of Federal Constitution 's Fifth Amendment.
SUMMARY:
After the state of Connecticut authorized two bond issues--one to support the planning activities of a private nonprofit development corporation that had been established to assist the city of New London in planning economic development, and the other to support creation of a state park in the city 's waterfront area--a pharmaceutical company announced that it would build a $300 million research facility near the park.
Subsequently, the city approved a development plan that (1) according to the Connecticut Supreme Court, was "projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas"; and (2) involved land that (a) included the state park and approximately 115 privately owned properties, (b) was adjacent to the pharmaceutical company 's facility, and (c) had been designated for a hotel, restaurants, retail and office spaces, marinas for both
SUSETTE KELO, et al., Petitioners v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, et al.
No. 04-108
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
545 U.S. 469; 125 S. Ct. 2655; 162 L. Ed. 2d 439; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5011; 60 ERC (BNA) 1769; 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 733; 35 ELR 20134; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 437
February 22, 2005, Argued June 23, 2005, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:
US Supreme Court rehearing denied by Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 1158, 126 S. Ct. 24, 162 L. Ed. 2d 922, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5331 (U.S., Aug. 22, 2005)
PRIOR HISTORY: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT. Kelo v. City of New London, 268 Conn. 1, 843 A.2d 500, 2004 Conn. LEXIS 54 (2004)
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
DECISION: [***439] Proposed disposition of property "to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize . . . economically distressed city" held to qualify as "public use" within meaning of takings clause of Federal Constitution 's Fifth Amendment.
SUMMARY:
After the state of Connecticut authorized two bond issues--one to support the planning activities of a private nonprofit development corporation that had been established to assist the city of New London in planning economic development, and the other to support creation of a state park in the city 's waterfront area--a pharmaceutical company announced that it would build a $300 million research facility near the park.
Subsequently, the city approved a development plan that (1) according to the Connecticut Supreme Court, was "projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas"; and (2) involved land that (a) included the state park and approximately 115 privately owned properties, (b) was adjacent to the pharmaceutical company 's facility, and (c) had been designated for a hotel, restaurants, retail and office spaces, marinas for both
References: When is taking of property for "public use" so as to be permissible under Federal Constitution if just compensation is provided--Supreme Court cases. 81 L. Ed. 2d 931. Comment Note.--What provisions of the Federal Constitution 's Bill of Rights are applicable to the states. 18 L. Ed. 2d 1388, 23 L. Ed. 2d 985. Eminent domain: Public taking of sports or entertainment franchise or organization as taking for public purpose. 30 A.L.R.4th 1226. Eminent domain: Possibility of overcoming specific obstacles to contemplated use as element in determining existence of necessary public use. 22 A.L.R.4th 840. Eminent domain: Validity of appropriation of property for anticipated future use. 80 A.L.R.3d 1085. Right to condemn property in excess of needs for a particular public purpose. 6 A.L.R.3d 297.