The 4-2 ruling is reminiscent of the federal Supreme Court's dubious decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which also upheld a condemnation for a project that turned out to be a dud.
We should celebrate our fandom on our own dime, and on our own property.
Today is the anniversary of one of the most controversial - and most unpopular - property rights decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.
The decision distinguishes US Supreme Court cases allowing the government to transfer property from one private party to another for almost any "public purpose."
I took part in panels on these topics at the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention
A district judge says no, but don't expect the state’s gun-grabbing politicians to give up.
In his recent memoir, he admits he seriously misinterpreted precedent in one of his most controversial decisions, but maintains he still got the result right.
Fourteen years after the notorious Kelo case, the state where the case originated still has one of the nation's weakest eminent domain reform laws. A bill currently before the state legislature could change that.
The court concluded that property may only be condemned for projects that will proceed in "the reasonably foreseeable future."
The factory stands on land seized in a taking that forcibly displaced over 4000 people, and attracted widespread widespread opposition. The lessons and legacy of the Poletown case remain relevant today.
The eminent domain reform bill is the same legislation that has passed the House three previous times since 2005. Each time, it died in the Senate without ever coming to a vote.
Jeff Benedict, author of "Little Pink House," proposes that the City of New London return the land it condemned in the takings that led to the notorious Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London.
An impressive new movie dramatizes the story behind the famous Supreme Court case about whether it is permissible for the government to condemn homes in order to promote private "economic development."
The state court ruling also concluded the taking violates the state constitution because it is for a forbidden "private use," rather than a public one.