The “Public Use” requirement is coterminous with the scope of a sovereign’s police powers. The Government itself does not have to use the property. Hawaii statute that permitted condemnation of residential tracts to transfer ownership to existing lessees to reduce concentration of land ownership served a legitimate public purpose and was not a purely private taking.
Kelo v. City of New London
The concept of “public purpose” is defined broadly. The use of eminent domain by private parties to carry out a city-approved development plan to promote economic development was not unconstitutional.
Berman v. Parker (US Supreme Court 1954)
The 5th Amendment’s “Public Use” clause includes a “public purpose” for which Congress could properly exercise its police powers. Acquiring property for redevelopment project for aesthetic improvement was constitutional.
Three D Corp. v. Salt Lake City
Substantial and material impairment of a property owner’s right of access can constitute a compensable taking.
Price Development Co. v. Orem City
Redevelopment agencies must follow substantive and procedural rules when exercising eminent domain authority.
Davis County v. Zions First National Bank
Requirements for eminent domain complaint; determining value.
UDOT v. Harvey Real Estate
Access rights do not include rights to existing traffic flow or guaranteed access at a specific location.
Provo City v. Ivie
Cities may only exercise authority granted to them by the Legislature.
Selman v. Box Elder County
Discusses the authority of the Ombudsman’s Office to mediate takings disputes.
- Page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
