Conclusion What conclusion did the court reach regarding this issue (usually answers the question presented in the issue)? No, the city does not violate the clause of the 5 th amendment dealing with the taking of owned land because the purpose of the claim was for a “public use.” The city may validly exercise its eminent domain authority to take private property and distribute it to private developers without violating the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement. The plaintiffs’ argument, that a true public use cannot confer only economic benefits on the public, is rejected. This taking of land is for a beneficial public purpose. This will help the town that has dealt with economic hardship.
[BUSA303, Business Law and Ethics Case Brief Form Your Opinion What are your thoughts on this case or the issue involved? Was the right decision reached? Did the parties act reasonably? How would you resolve this issue? The defendants are doing this for a good cause. I personally agree with the economic development idea and I instantly knew it was not for a benefit of a particular group. This was for justice in a way. The Supreme Court made the right decision and I agree with the reasonings and evidences that they provided.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 3 pages?
- Spring '14
- Business Law