View the step-by-step solution to:

In June, 2005, the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v.

In June, 2005, the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London held that although the city of New London could not take private land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, the takings could be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan. The Supreme Court rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the public. Rather, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose."

Given the rapid growth of cyber business, is this expansion of eminent domain good or bad? Could the takings be used to help develop high-technology development parks? Or, should we be more concerned with the threat to personal freedom that expanded eminent domain could entail? Does the Supreme Court's interpretation give greater opportunity for misconduct (bribery)?

please cite source...thanks
Sign up to view the entire interaction

Top Answer

The answer is... View the full answer


The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part :”... nor shall
private property be taken for public use without just compensation” (National
Archives, 2014)
In preceding this event...

Sign up to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.


Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online