Write My Paper Button

WhatsApp Widget

Experts in Nursing and Health Care Papers

We can handle your health care and nursing papers. Let us know what you need!

Pilgrims filed suit in federal district court, alleging that Authority’s action constituted an unlawful taking in violation of the public use requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution and sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the action. Based on the facts, how would the court in a jurisdiction following the rule and reasoning in Kelo v. City of New London analyze and decide the merits of the constitutional issue?

C City was settled in the 1600’s by 100 families. Real estate title records showed that 80% of the privately-owned land in C City was held by 20 families, all descendants of the original settlers, and there were significantly fewer real estate transactions per year in C City than in any other city in S State. In 2016, the S State legislature, after extensive research, found that the concentration of land ownership in C City limited the real estate marketplace, unduly inflated land prices when land became available for sale, reduced real estate tax revenue, and inhibited business and economic growth because of the lack of available real estate. After lengthy hearings, the legislature passed the S State Land Reform Act of 2016 (“Act”). The purpose of Act was to alleviate the problems created by the concentrated land ownership in C City by identifying and condemning appropriate tracts of land and then transferring ownership to current lessees under certain conditions. An appropriate mechanism was developed to establish fair value for condemned property. The C City Redevelopment Authority (“Authority”) was created to administer Act, which became effective on January 1, 2017.
The Pilgrim Family (“Pilgrims”) owned substantial land in C City. Five of Pilgrims’ tenants, who qualified under the Act, filed applications asking Authority to condemn 20 acres of land owned by Pilgrims. Authority held a public hearing on the proposed condemnation, made the finding that the acquisition of 20 acres of Pilgrims’ lands would effectuate the public purposes of Act, and began the process of condemnation. Pilgrims filed suit in federal district court, alleging that Authority’s action constituted an unlawful taking in violation of the public use requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution and sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the action. Based on the facts, how would the court in a jurisdiction following the rule and reasoning in Kelo v. City of New London analyze and decide the merits of the constitutional issue?

Pilgrims filed suit in federal district court, alleging that Authority’s action constituted an unlawful taking in violation of the public use requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution and sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the action. Based on the facts, how would the court in a jurisdiction following the rule and reasoning in Kelo v. City of New London analyze and decide the merits of the constitutional issue?
Scroll to top

Trustworthy Platform for Your Nursing Assignments

X
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!